Leany v. Zurich American Insurance Company

Filing 18

ORDER Granting 14 Joint Motion to Modify Discovery Plan. Discovery due by 6/17/2017. Motions due by 7/17/2017. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 8/16/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 2/22/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

Case 2:16-cv-01890-RFB-PAL Document 17 Filed 02/15/17 Page 1 of 6

1
2
3
4
5
6

D. CHRIS ALBRIGHT, ESQ., #4904
WILLIAM H. STODDARD, JR., ESQ., #8679
ALBRIGHT, STODDARD, WARNICK & ALBRIGHT
801 South Rancho Drive, Suite D4
Las Vegas, Nevada 89106
Tel: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterdefendant

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9

TODD L. LEANY,

Case No.: 2:16-cv-01890-RFB-PAL

10
Plaintiff,

11

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
801 S. RANCHO DRIVE
QUAIL PARK,VEGAS,D-4
LAS SUITE NEVADA 89106
801 S. RANCHO DRIVE
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89106

Law Offices
ALBRIGHT, STODDARD, WARNICK & ALBRIGHT
Law Offices
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ALBRIGHT, STODDARD, WARNICKSUITE D-4
QUAIL PARK, & ALBRIGHT

12

v.

13

ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE
COMPANY, a New York corporation;

14

Defendants.

15
16

ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE
COMPANY,

PLAINTIFF’S JOINT MOTION TO MODIFY
THE DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING
ORDER AND TO EXTEND THE DISCOVERY
DEADLINE AND OTHER DEADLINES SET
FORTH THEREIN

17
Counterclaimant,
18
19

vs.

Honorable Richard F. Boulware, II
Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen
Courtroom 7C

TODD L. LEANY,

20
Counterdefendant.
21
22

COMES NOW, Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, TODD L. LEANY, individually

23

(hereinafter sometimes “Leany” or “Plaintiff”), by and through his counsel of record, D.

24

CHRIS ALBRIGHT, ESQ. and WILLIAM H. STODDARD, JR. of the law firm of

25
26

ALBRIGHT, STODDARD, WARNICK & ALBRIGHT; and Defendant/Counterclaimant,

27

ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY (hereinafter sometimes “Zurich” or

28

“Defendant”), by and through its counsel of record ABRAN E. VIGIL, ESQ., MARIA A.

G:\Bud\Leany, Todd adv Zurich (9386.0080)\Leany v. Zurich (USDC Case)\Joint Motion to Modify Scheduling Order 2.14.17.doc

Case 2:16-cv-01890-RFB-PAL Document 17 Filed 02/15/17 Page 2 of 6

1

GALL, ESQ., and JOSEPH P. SAKAI, ESQ. of BALLARD SPAHR LLP, and, pursuant to LR

2

IA 6-1 and LR II 26-4, said parties hereby jointly move this Court for an Order to Modify the

3

Order (ECF No. 12) which set forth this Court’s Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order

4
(hereinafter the “Prior Scheduling Order”).
5
More specifically, the parties hereby jointly move for a sixty (60) day extension of all

6
7

dates set forth in the Prior Scheduling Order (ECF No. 12) which have not already expired. In

8

other words, the parties request that:

9
10

• The February 17, 2017 deadline for expert disclosures and reports be extended an
additional 60 days, until April 18, 2017, with rebuttal expert reports being due on May 17,

11
2017;
• That the current discovery cut-off date of April 17, 2017 be extended an additional

13
14
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
QUAIL PARK, SUITE D-4
801 S. RANCHO DRIVE
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89106

Law Offices
ALBRIGHT, STODDARD, WARNICK & ALBRIGHT

12

sixty (60) days to June 16, 2017;

15
16

• That the current deadline for filing dispositive motions of May 17, 2017, be extended
an additional sixty (60) days to July 17, 2017; and

17

• That the current deadline for filing the Joint Pre-Trial Order of June 17, 2017, be

18
19

extended an additional sixty (60) days to August 16, 2017.

20

This Motion is filed for good cause shown as set forth in the below ANALYSIS Section

21

hereof, and is filed in a timely manner pursuant to LR II 26-4, 21 days before the expiration of

22

any deadline sought to be extended herein, with the exception of the deadline for expert

23

disclosures and reports, which the parties seek to extend for good cause shown, as discussed

24
below.
25
26
27
28

GOOD CAUSE ANALYSIS and LR II 26-4 STATEMENTS
LR II 26-4(a) Statement: Discovery completed in this matter to date: The parties have
made their initial disclosures pursuant to FRCP 26.

-2-

Plaintiff has served its first set of

Case 2:16-cv-01890-RFB-PAL Document 17 Filed 02/15/17 Page 3 of 6

1

Interrogatories, Requests to Produce and Requests for Admit. Defendant Zurich is in the process

2

of preparing written discovery, which will also be served in the near future.

3

LR II 26-4(b) Statement:

Written discovery has not yet been completed.

No

4
depositions have yet been completed.
5
6

LR II 26-4(c) Statement and Showing of Good Cause, including the reasons why the

7

deadline(s) will not be satisfied nor the remaining discovery completed within the time limits set

8

by the original discovery plan: Good cause exists for this Motion, for the following reasons,

9

which also explains the reasons why the deadlines sought to be extended herein will not be

10

completed within the time limits originally scheduled.

11

13

This matter is related to a separate case currently pending before the American
Arbitration Association (the “AAA Proceeding”), wherein Zurich has filed a Demand for

14
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
QUAIL PARK, SUITE D-4
801 S. RANCHO DRIVE
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89106

Law Offices
ALBRIGHT, STODDARD, WARNICK & ALBRIGHT

12

Arbitration against Century Steel, Inc., a Nevada corporation (which is not a party to this case),

15

as well as an individual, Todd L. Leany, who is the Plaintiff in this case.

16
17

In the AAA

Proceeding, Zurich alleges claims for breach of contract against Century Steel, but has also
named Plaintiff Leany as an alleged alter ego of Century Steel in that matter. Plaintiff Leany

18
19

filed this action seeking, inter alia, declaratory relief that he is not required to appear in the AAA

20

Proceeding, and that he is not the alter ego of Century Steel. Zurich has filed a Counterclaim in

21

this action seeking, inter alia, declaratory relief that Leany is the alter ego of Century Steel and

22

that Leany must defend the claims Zurich has brought against him and Century Steel in the AAA

23

Proceeding.

24
To-date, the AAA Proceeding (which precipitated this matter), which was filed in August
25
26

of 2016, has been somewhat slow to move forward, inasmuch as it was necessary for the parties

27

to select an arbitration panel, and for that panel to then hold a preliminary administrative hearing

28

and issue a scheduling order. For reasons unrelated to any dilatory conduct by the undersigned,

-3-

Case 2:16-cv-01890-RFB-PAL Document 17 Filed 02/15/17 Page 4 of 6

1

the dates for the preliminary hearing have been repeatedly postponed by the AAA or the panel

2

and a determination that the second scheduled hearing should not be completed pending possible

3

amendments to the pleadings to name new parties.

4
As a result, there have now been three (3) scheduled preliminary hearings, including,
5
6

most recently, a full and complete hearing on January 27, 2017, which resulted in the issuance of

7

a scheduling order by the AAA panel on February 1, 2017. Among the issues discussed in the

8

hearings and finally resolved in that final preliminary hearing, has been the scope of discovery to

9

be permitted in the AAA Proceeding. Since these cases are interrelated, the parties had been

10

waiting for clarity on the scope of discovery that would be allowed in the AAA Proceeding,

11

13
14
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
QUAIL PARK, SUITE D-4
801 S. RANCHO DRIVE
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89106

Law Offices
ALBRIGHT, STODDARD, WARNICK & ALBRIGHT

12

15
16
17

before commencing discovery in this case, so as to properly allocate discovery inquiries between
the two (2) matters, based on what would be permitted in the AAA Proceeding, and to hopefully
reduce redundancy in discovery between these matters.
For example, in the second preliminary hearing, the arbitration panel chair appeared to
have suggested that he might not be inclined to allow the parties to take any written discovery in
the AAA Proceeding, by way of Interrogatories. This undoubtedly would have affected the

18
19

manner in which written discovery was taken in the present case, due to the closely aligned

20

nature of the cases (and the fact that discovery taken in each case would undoubtedly overlap and

21

be relevant in certain instances to both cases).

22

preliminary conference, the parties prevailed upon the arbitration panel to allow written

23

However, in the recent (third and final)

discovery to be taken by the parties in that proceeding. Until such clarity was provided, the

24
parties had been reluctant to commence discovery in the present case so as to understand the
25
26
27
28

scope of discovery to be taken in each case. This course will undoubtedly prove more efficient
and preserve the parties’ and potentially judicial resources.
Since a scheduling order has now finally issued in the AAA Proceeding, the parties now

-4-

Case 2:16-cv-01890-RFB-PAL Document 17 Filed 02/15/17 Page 5 of 6

1

understand what discovery will be permitted in each case, and can proceed accordingly. As a

2

result, while the parties have previously made initial disclosures, including the production of

3

documents identified therein, they can now tailor their discovery requests in each case

4
specifically to each separate proceeding.
5
With regard to the question of excusable neglect on the failure to file the present motion

6
7

within 21 days of the expert disclosure deadline (i.e., the only deadline sought to be continued

8

that expires in less than 21 days from the date of the filing of this motion), the parties do not

9

presently know whether any experts will be needed, and will not know that until they have seen

10

responses to each others’ written discovery requests.

Since the parties have felt it would

11

13

conserve resources to briefly wait on the arbitration panel to clarify issues related to the scope of
discovery in the AAA Proceeding, they are now in a position to issue their discovery requests,

14
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
QUAIL PARK, SUITE D-4
801 S. RANCHO DRIVE
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89106

Law Offices
ALBRIGHT, STODDARD, WARNICK & ALBRIGHT

12

which will answer the question of whether any expert witnesses are necessary.

15

disclosures in the present case are not necessarily anticipated; however, they may become

16

Expert

necessary depending on the answers to discovery.

17

Therefore, it is respectfully requested that the sixty (60) day extension of deadlines

18
19

requested herein be granted.

20

LR II 26-4(d) Statement: Based on the foregoing, the parties hereby propose the

21

following schedule for completing all remaining discovery and for completing the remaining

22

matters currently scheduled in this case:

23

• That the February 17, 2017 deadline for expert disclosures and reports be extended an

24
additional 60 days, until April 18, 2017, with rebuttal expert reports being due on May 17,
25
26
27
28

2017;
• That the current discovery cut-off date of April 17, 2017 be extended an additional
sixty (60) days to June 16, 2017;

-5-

Case 2:16-cv-01890-RFB-PAL Document 17 Filed 02/15/17 Page 6 of 6

1
2
3

• That the current deadline for filing dispositive motions of May 17, 2017, be extended
an additional sixty (60) days to July 17, 2017; and
• That the current deadline for filing the Joint Pre-Trial Order of June 17, 2017, be

4
extended an additional sixty (60) days to August 16, 2017.
5
6
7

DATED this 14th day of February, 2017.

DATED this 14th day of February, 2017.

ALBRIGHT, STODDARD, WARNICK
& ALBRIGHT

BALLARD SPAHR LLP

/s/ William H. Stoddard, Jr.
D. CHRIS ALBRIGHT, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 004904
WILLIAM H. STODDARD, JR., Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 8679
801 South Rancho Drive, Suite D4
Las Vegas, Nevada 89106
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterdefendant

/s/ Maria A. Gall
ABRAN E. VIGIL, ESQ., #7548
MARIA A. GALL, ESQ., #14200
JOSEPH P. SAKAI, ESQ., #13578
100 North City Parkway, Suite 1750
Las Vegas, Nevada 89106
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant

8
9
10
11

13
14
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
QUAIL PARK, SUITE D-4
801 S. RANCHO DRIVE
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89106

Law Offices
ALBRIGHT, STODDARD, WARNICK & ALBRIGHT

12

15
16
17
18

ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 22nd day of February, 2017.

19
20

______________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22

Respectfully submitted,

23

/s/ William H. Stoddard, Jr.
D. CHRIS ALBRIGHT, ESQ., # 004904
WILLIAM H. STODDARD, JR., ESQ., #8679
801 South Rancho Drive, Suite D4
[phone]
Las Vegas, Nevada 89106
Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterdefendant

24
25
26
27
28

-6-