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)

Download PDF
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: clark.thiel@pillsburylaw.com michael.mcnamara@pillsburylaw.com brandon.clark@pillsburylaw.com 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: scook@klnevada.com wvolk@klnevada.com dkidd@klnevada.com SHEMILLY BRISCOE Nevada Bar No. 9985 BRISCOE LAW GROUP 1060 Wigwam Parkway Henderson, Nevada 89074 Telephone: 702.754.5600 E-mail: shemilly@briscoelawgroup.com 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: jlevin@foley.com pmcmahon@foley.com 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: jose.pienknagura@aecom.com 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-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?