Hunt/Penta et al v. Aon Risk Services South, Inc.

Filing 80

ORDER Granting 78 Stipulation to Extend Discovery Deadlines. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 8/24/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

Case 2:16-cv-01563-JAD-NJK Document 78 Filed 08/23/17 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6

CLARK THIEL (Nevada Bar No. 10778)
MICHAEL S. MCNAMARA (Pro Hac Vice)
BRANDON C. CLARK (Pro Hac Vice)
PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW
PITTMAN LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-5998
Telephone:
415.983.1000
Facsimile:
415.983.1200
E-mail: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

SCOTT R. COOK (Nevada Bar No. 5265)
WILLIAM P. VOLK (Nevada Bar No. 6157)
E. DANIEL KIDD (Nevada Bar No. 10106)
KOLESAR & LEATHAM
400 South Rampart Boulevard, Suite 400
Las Vegas, Nevada 89145
Telephone:
702.362.7800
Facsímile:
702.362.9472
E-Mail: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

SHEMILLY BRISCOE
Nevada Bar No. 9985
BRISCOE LAW GROUP
1060 Wigwam Parkway
Henderson, Nevada 89074
Telephone:
702.754.5600
E-mail: [e-mail]

JENA L. LEVIN (Pro Hac Vice)
PATRICK J. MCMAHON (Pro Hac Vice)
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
321 North Clark Street, Suite 2800
Chicago, Illinois 60654
Telephone:
312.832.4500
Facsimile:
312.832.4700
E-Mail: [e-mail]
[e-mail]

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

JOSE M. PIENKNAGURA (Pro Hac Vice)
HUNT CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC.
7720 N. 16th Street, Ste 100
Phoenix, AZ 85020
Telephone:
480.368.4700
E-mail: [e-mail]

Counsel for Aon Risk Services South, Inc.

Counsel for Hunt/PENTA and Insurance
Partners, Inc.

16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

17
18
19

HUNT/PENTA, a Joint-Venture of HUNT
CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., and PENTA
BUILDING GROUP, LLC,

Removed Case No.: A-16-736809-C

20

Plaintiffs,
STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTEND
DISCOVERY DEADLINES
(Second Request)

21
v.
22
23
24
25

Case No.: 2-16-cv-01563-JAD-NJK

AON RISK SERVICES SOUTH, INC., and
Does 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants.
_______________________________________
AND RELATED MATTERS.

26
27
28

IT IS HEREBY STIUPLATED AND AGREED between the parties that some of the

Case 2:16-cv-01563-JAD-NJK Document 78 Filed 08/23/17 Page 2 of 3

1

discovery dates be continued by adding approximately 30 days to the discovery schedule. The

2

stipulation would change the close of discovery from August 28, 2017 to September 27, 2017.

3

The primary purpose of this extension is to allow an additional 30 days to conduct additional

4

depositions and review recently produced voluminous records.

5

I.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Legal Authority
After the court has set a scheduling order, it may be changed upon a showing of good

cause. LR 26-4. Good cause is shown for the discovery extension based upon the Parties’
discovery progress, including extensive efforts at setting a workable deposition schedule in
different states. Id.; see also Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.3d 604, 608-09 (9th
Cir. 1992). The good cause inquiry focuses primarily on the movant’s diligence. See Coleman v.
Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294-95 (9th Cir. 2000). Good cause to extend a discovery
deadline exists “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the
extension.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. The Court has broad discretion in supervising the pretrial
phase of litigation. Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002).

II.

Proposed Schedule

16
17

Prior Date

Proposed Date

Discovery Cutoff

August 28, 2017

September 27, 2017

Dispositive Motions

September 27, 2017

September 27, 2017

Joint Pre-Trial Order

18

Activity

October 27, 2017

October 27, 2017

19
20
21
The Parties entered into this Stipulation in an effort to complete discovery. Good cause is
22
shown for the discovery extension based upon the Parties’ discovery progress, including
23
extensive efforts at setting a workable deposition schedule in different states to accommodate
24
many conflicting calendars that must be reconciled to get additional deposition testimony. To the
25
extent that this request is untimely, excusable neglect is shown by the Parties’ diligence in
26
resolving their discovery issues and disagreements without contested motion practice.

No

27
prejudice is done to any party because the Parties agree to this discovery extension. The parties
28
-2-

Case 2:16-cv-01563-JAD-NJK Document 78 Filed 08/23/17 Page 3 of 3

1
2
3

are not delaying the conclusion of this matter by the way of trial or otherwise; rather, the Parties
are trying to garner all the necessary information and evidence needed to litigate this matter. No
trial date has yet been ordered.

4
5
6
7

Dated: August 23, 2017.

Respectfully submitted,

BRISCOE LAW GROUP
PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW
PITTMAN LLP
HUNT CONSTRUCTION, INC.

KOLESAR & LEATHAM
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP

___/s/ Shemilly A. Briscoe_____________
Shemilly Briscoe (Nevada Bar No. 9985)
Clark Thiel (Nevada Bar No. 10778)
Michael S. McNamara (Pro Hac Vice)
Brandon C. Clark (Pro Hac Vice)
Jose Pienknagura (Pro Hac Vice)

_________/s/ Jena L. Levin________________
Scott R. Cook (Nevada Bar No. 5265)
William P. Volk (Nevada Bar No. 6157)
E. Daniel Kidd (Nevada Bar No. 10106)
Jena L. Levin (Pro Hac Vice)
Patrick J. McMahon (Pro Hac Vice)

Counsel for Hunt/PENTA and Insurance
Partners, Inc.

Counsel for Aon Risk Services South, Inc.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DENIED as moot.

16

DATED: August 24
IT IS SO ORDERED._______, 2017.

17

Dated: August 24, 2017

18
19

__________________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-