Sonoro Invest S.A. v. Miller et al

Filing 145

ORDER Granting 144 Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines. Discovery due by 1/30/2018. Motions due by 3/1/2018. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 4/2/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 6/15/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

JAMES PATRICK SHEA, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 405
SCOTT D. FLEMING, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 5638
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
3770 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 200
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 702.878.9995
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
DAVID MARDER, ESQ.
Massachusetts Bar No. 552485 (pro hac vice)
SHERLI FURST, ESQ.
New York Bar No. 4783577 (pro hac vice)
MICHAEL A. KOLCUN, ESQ.
New York Bar No. 5054127 (pro hac vice)
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
399 Park Avenue, Suite 3600
New York, New York 10022-4611
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Counsel for Plaintiff Sonoro Invest S.A.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

17
18

SONORO INVEST S.A., a Panamanian
corporation,

19

Plaintiff,

20
21
22

v.
ROBERT MILLER, an individual; ANDREW
SHERMAN, an individual; COSTAS TAKKAS, an
individual; and STEPHEN GOSS, an individual,

23

Defendants,

24
25

Case No. 2:15-cv-2286

and
ABAKAN, INC., a Nevada corporation,

26

Nominal Defendant.

27
28

///
1

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND
DISCOVERY DEADLINES
(First Request)

1

Plaintiff Sonoro Invest S.A., (“Sonoro”) by and through its attorneys, Armstrong Teasdale

2

LLP, hereby files this first Unopposed Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines (the “Motion”). This

3

Motion is made and based upon the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the papers

4

and pleadings on file herein, and any argument the Court may allow at the time of a hearing.

1

5

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

6

I.

7

INTRODUCTION

8

The current Scheduling Order provides for the service of initial expert disclosures by August

9

3, 2017. Prior to preparing that disclosure, Sonoro anticipates needing to take certain depositions,

10

which cannot occur until the document productions are complete.

11

exchanging documents, Sonoro does not anticipate being ready to make the expert disclosures in the

12

time contemplated by the Scheduling Order, and requests that the Scheduling Order be extended by

13

four months. Sonoro conferred with Defendants prior to filing this Motion to extend the discovery

14

deadlines as set forth below, and the Defendants are in agreement and will not oppose the relief

15

requested.

16

II.

17

Since the parties are still

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

18
19

1.

On December 3, 2015, Sonoro initiated this action by filing its Complaint. ECF No.

1. On December 29, 2015, Sonoro filed its operative First Amended Complaint. ECF No. 11.

20

2.

On March 31, 2016, an Order was entered approving a stipulated discovery plan and

21

scheduling order as between Sonoro and Sherman.

22

participate as they were not yet served, and Goss declined to do so. Id.

23

3.

ECF No. 50.

Miller and Takkas did not

On May 31, 2016, an Order was entered staying all discovery in light of the

24

dispositive motions filed by Goss and Takkas. ECF No. 102. The Order provided that the parties

25

must meet and confer and file a proposed discovery plan and scheduling order within fourteen days

26
27
28

1

While this is the parties’ first request to extend the discovery deadlines in this case, all such deadlines were previously
extended when the Court entered an Order staying discovery pending the outcome of certain Defendants’ motions to
dismiss. ECF No. 102.

2

1

from the date of the order on the then-pending motions to dismiss, with discovery deadlines

2

measured from the date of the order on the motions to dismiss. Id.

3
4

4.

On January 24, 2017, an Order was entered denying the motions to dismiss of Goss,

Takkas, and Miller, and denying the motion to transfer venue of Sherman. ECF No. 129.

5

5.

On February 7, 2017, the parties submitted a proposed discovery plan and scheduling

6

order. ECF No. 130. The parties requested special scheduling review to set the discovery deadlines

7

for a period of 250 days given the complex nature of this case and the numerous and geographically

8

diverse parties and witnesses, in addition to the fact that Takkas is confined to his home pending the

9

outcome of a criminal case. Id.

10

6.

On February 8, 2017, an Order was entered approving the parties’ proposed discovery

11

plan and scheduling order. ECF No. 135. The Order set the discovery deadline for October 2, 2017.

12

III.

13

LEGAL STANDARD

14

Local Rule 26-4 provides that a party may request an extension of time to complete discovery

15

upon “a showing of good cause.” “The good cause inquiry focuses primarily on the movant’s

16

diligence.” Derosa v. Blood Sys., Inc., No. 2:13-CV-0137-JCM-NJK, 2013 WL 3975764, at *1 (D.

17

Nev. Aug. 1, 2013). “Good cause to extend a discovery deadline exists if it cannot reasonably be met

18

despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id. Requests to extend discovery deadlines

19

must include: “(a) A statement specifying the discovery completed; (b) A specific description of the

20

discovery that remains to be completed; (c) The reasons why the deadline was not satisfied or the

21

remaining discovery was not completed within the time limits set by the discovery plan; and, (d) A

22

proposed schedule for completing all remaining discovery.” LR 26-4.

23

IV.

24

ARGUMENT

25

As set forth below, Sonoro has issued document requests to a variety of parties and non-

26

parties in a timely fashion, but has not yet secured all of the documents sought.

27

///

28

///
3

1

A.

2

Discovery Completed

3
4

As of the date of this Stipulated Motion, the parties have exchanged Initial Disclosures, and
both Sonoro and Sherman have served multiple supplements thereto.

5

Sonoro has served six sets of document requests to Defendants, including three sets of

6

Requests for Production on Sherman, two sets of Requests for Production on both Miller and Goss,

7

and one set of Requests for Production on Takkas. Sonoro has reached an agreement with Miller,

8

Goss, and Takkas to employ search terms to facilitate the collection and production of responsive

9

documents. Sonoro has engaged in extensive negotiations to develop search terms with Sherman, but

10

has not yet to reach a similar agreement with him. Sonoro and Sherman continue to negotiate such a

11

proposal.

12

To date, Sherman has produced approximately 3,600 pages of documents in response to

13

Sonoro’s Requests for Production, and Sonoro expects a substantial number of additional documents

14

will be produced once search terms are agreed-upon and applied to the entirety of Sherman’s various

15

sources of relevant information. Takkas has produced approximately 5,000 pages of documents in

16

response to Sonoro’s Requests for Production, and deems his obligation to respond to Sonoro’s

17

discovery requests to be complete. Miller and Goss have not yet produced any documents in

18

response to Sonoro’s Requests for Production.

19

Sonoro has also issued twelve non-party document subpoenas to various individuals and

20

entities. Several of these non-parties have collectively produced approximately 108,000 pages of

21

documents. Additionally, non-party MesoCoat Inc. – Abakan’s operating subsidiary – produced

22

approximately 4,300 pages of documents in response to Sonoro’s subpoenas, as well as a hard drive

23

containing approximately 330 gigabytes of data.

24

For his part, Miller recently issued two non-party document subpoenas.

25

Defendants did not serve a discovery request on Sonoro. Nonetheless, Sonoro has produced

26

approximately 153,000 pages of documents that it may use to support its claims or defenses.

27

///

28

///
4

1

B.

2

Discovery That Remains To Be Completed

3

As discussed above, Sonoro and Sherman are still negotiating a proposal for the use of search

4

terms to collect and produce documents in response to Sonoro’s Requests for Production and the

5

three subpoenas to which Sherman assumed the obligation to respond.

6

agreement on search terms will be reached in the near future, enabling Sherman to produce all

7

remaining documents that are responsive to Sonoro’s discovery requests.

8

Sherman’s forthcoming production will be substantial.

9
10

Sonoro anticipates an

Sonoro anticipates

Neither Goss nor Miller has produced any documents in response to Sonoro’s discovery
requests. Sonoro anticipates their document production, when complete, will also be substantial.

11

Once Defendants produce the entirety of the requested documents, the parties will be required

12

to take both party and non-party depositions of fact witnesses. Sonoro anticipates several depositions

13

will be required, which will occur in multiple locations across the country. As set forth above,

14

Sonoro envisions that some of these depositions will have to be taken before expert disclosures are

15

prepared.

16
17

Sonoro also anticipates serving additional written discovery on Defendants, namely,
interrogatories and requests for admission.

18
19

Sonoro anticipates the parties will engage in expert discovery on a number of discrete issues,
which will require both written reports and deposition testimony of experts.

20

C.

21

Reasons Why Discovery Has Not Been Completed And Should Be Extended

22

As described above, Sonoro propounded significant written discovery to Defendants and

23

numerous non-parties in a timely fashion. Many of the documents sought by Sonoro have not yet

24

been produced. Therefore, good cause exists to extend the discovery deadlines because the discovery

25

Sonoro needs is outside of its control and has not yet been provided despite Sonoro’s diligent efforts

26

as outlined above.

27

///

28

///
5

1

In light of the significant amount of document discovery still left to complete before the

2

expert disclosures can be prepared, and upon consultation and agreement with Defendants, Sonoro

3

respectfully requests a four-month extension in the current schedule.

4

D.

5

Proposed Schedule

6

1) Amending the Pleadings and Adding Parties – November 2, 2017

7

2) Interim Status Report – December 1, 2017

8

3) Expert Disclosures – December 1, 2017

9

4) Rebuttal Expert Disclosures – January 9, 2018

10

5) Discovery Cut-Off – January 30, 2018

11

6) Dispositive Motions – March 1, 2018

12

7) Pretrial Order – April 2, 2018

13

///

14

///

15

///

16

///

17

///

18

///

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
6

1

V.

2

CONCLUSION

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

For the reasons set forth above, Sonoro respectfully requests that the foregoing, outstanding
deadlines be extended for four months, and the Motion be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: June 14, 2017

ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
By: /s/ Scott D. Fleming
James Patrick Shea, Esq.
Scott D. Fleming, Esq.
Armstrong Teasdale LLP
3770 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 200
Las Vegas, NV 89169
Main: [phone]
Direct: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
David Marder, Esq. (pro hac vice)
Sherli Furst, Esq. (pro hac vice)
Michael A. Kolcun, Esq. (pro hac vice)
Robins Kaplan LLP
399 Park Avenue, Suite 3600
New York, New York 10022-4611
Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Counsel for Plaintiff Sonoro Invest S.A.

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED:

22

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23

DATED: ________________________

24
25

June 15, 2017

26
27
28
7

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing UNOPPOSED

3

MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES was served on all parties of record via ECF

4

on this 14th day of June, 2017.

5
6

By: /s/ Jessica Myrold
Jessica Myrold

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8