Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC et al

Filing 65

ORDER granting 64 Stipulation; Discovery due by 5/22/2018. Motions due by 6/23/2018. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 7/23/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 3/9/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

Download PDF
1 2 J 4 5 6 John S. Delikanakis, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 5928 Kiah D. Beverly-Graham, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 11916 SNELL & WILMER t-.r-.p. 50 West Liberty Street, Suite 510 Reno, Nevada 89501 Telephone: 77 5-7 85-5440 Facsimile: 77 5-785-5441 7 Email : j delikanakis@ swlaw. com kbeverly@swlaw.com I Attorneysþr PlaintiffWells Fargo Bank, N.A 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 11 T2 o tr O ç, H Iu õ@q = H 2:l 6-cv -0225 7-JCM-CWH lú l= o STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES vs ûr oF Plaintiff, t4 Ø;h i c) Case No. 13 ,z fo iz^ U) V/ELLS FARGO BANK, N.4., a national banking association, 15 t6 t7 18 t9 SFR INVESTMENTS POOL Nevada limited-liability company; HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION SERVICES, lNC., aNevada corporation; THE FOOTHILLS AT MACDONALD RANCH MASTER ASSOCIATION, a Nevada nonprofit corporation;, 20 2T 22 Defendants. SFR INVESTMENTS POOL I,LLC, Nevada limited liability company, 25 26 27 A Counter-Claimant, 23 24 T,LLC, A vs. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.4., a national banking association; TRANSUNION SETTLEMENT SOLUTIONS, Counter-Defendant/Cross-Defendant. 28 482s-7745-7483 (FTRST REQUEST) STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES 1 2 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.26(Ð, and Local Rules 6-1,26-I and26-4, Wells Fargo Bank, J N.A. ("Wells Fargo") and SFR Investments Pool I,LLC ("SFR" and together with Wells Fargo, 4 the "Parties"), by and through their respective undersigned counsel of record, submit this 5 Stipulation and Proposed Order to extend the discovery deadlines in this action by sixty days. 6 This is the Parties' first request for extension of the operative discovery schedule.l 7 A. Discoverv Completed 8 1. Both Parties have served document demands and written discovery; 9 2. SFR served answers and objections thereto; 10 3. Wells Fargo served its expert disclosures; and l1 4. The person most knowledgeable for SFR appeared for deposition. t2 r¡¡ C)l 9 El i ål 1. Wells Fargo's 13 Z¿ F Ipfi* t4 g B. Discovery that Remains åååË ä' to be Completed responses and objections to SFR's requests for production and written discovery (the deadline for these responses is upcoming); 15 2. Deposition of the person most knowledgeable for Wells Fargo; I6 3. Production of documents by non-party the Foothills at MacDonald Ranch Master t7 Association (the "HOA"); and 4. 18 I9 20 2l C. Deposition of the person most knowledgeable for the HOA. Reasons Whv Discoverv'Was Not Completed The parties have acted diligently to complete discovery within the time provided. However, additional time is requested in good faith and for good cause for the following reasons. 22 First, a dispute arose between the parties over whether SFR's requests for admission and 23 other discovery demands were within the scope of FRCP 26(b). On February 13,2018 SFR 24 served a detailed and expansive set 25 provided SFR a particularized list of its objections to these requests and the basis for a potential 26 I The parties previously submitted three different proposed Disc^overy Plans and_S_9tt9{uting Orders. The firït was denied without prejudice in liglit of the stay of this actign. See ECF No. 52. The second was denied without prejtidiðe for failure to include certain certifïcations required.by local rule 26-I(b). S¿e ECF Nô. 52. This is the first request for extension of an operative 27 28 of ll2 requests discovery plan. 4825-7'.t45-',1483 -2- for admission. Wells Fargo subsequently 1 2 motion for a protective order. On March 1, 2018 the parties conducted a meet and confer to address Wells Fargo's to obviate the need for judicial a J objections. The parties reached an agreement intended 4 intervention. Wells Fargo agreed that, rather than move for a protective order, 5 responses and objections to the requests to admit, with the intent that its responses 6 lieu of deposition. Accordingly, SFR agreed to vacate the previously noticed deposition of the 7 person most knowledgeable for Wells Fargo. SFR also agreed to withdraw an interrogatory and a 8 request for production, both of which related to the RFAs, and which also sought a substantial 9 amount of information in light of the number of RFAs. it will serve will be used in 10 11 EI Z; F lpH* ø isrjË ã I =;3,El å that Wells Fargo's deadline to respond to SFR's discovery demands should be extended by thirty T2 blã In order to answer the expansive set of requests for admission, the parties further agreed days from March 19, 2018 to 13 thereafter t4 necessary. The foregoing necessitates the extension requested herein. to conduct April 16,2018 and that SFR should be provided suffrcient time a limited deposition of V/ells Fargo's person most knowledgeable if 15 Second, though Wells Fargo timely served subpoenas upon the non-party HOA for the I6 production of documents and attendance at deposition, the HOA has yet to comply with either t7 subpoena. Wells Fargo has engaged 18 believes the documents and deposition testimony I9 Court. However, counsel for the HOA advised V/ells Fargo that 20 production will be extensive. Accordingly, additional time beyond the existing discovery cut-off 2t is required for Wells Fargo to obtain the requested documents and then prepare for, and conduct, 22 the deposition of the HOA. in continued discussions with counsel for the HOA and will be obtained without the intervention of the it expects the document 23 Finally, the parties recognize that this request is made less than 21 days before the existing 24 discovery cut-off date of March 22, 2018 and respectfully submit that the failure to make this 25 request earlier was the result 26 originally believed 27 existing deadline, with respect 28 demands were multi-faceted and required time to be researched and addressed in writing to SFR. 4825-7745-7483 it of excusable neglect. Specifically, as stated above, Wells Fargo would be required to make a motion for a protective order, within the to SFR's discovery -3 - demands; The issues presented by these 1 The parties promptly held a meet and confer thereafter and reached the resolution described 2 above. Further, Wells Fargo has diligently attempted to obtain discovery from the HOA but, as of J yet, has been unable to complete this process as described above. Finally, the Parties note that no 4 party will be prejudiced by the requested extension. 5 D. Proposed Schedule for Remainine Discoverv 6 EXISTING DEADLINE EVENT 7 NE\il DEADLINE I Discovery cut-off March 22,2018 i|/;ay 22,2018 9 Dispositive motions April23,2018 June 23,2018 May 23,2018 July 23,2018 10 Pre-trial order and 11 26(a)(3) disclosures FRCP T2 li' c')I El 9 13 Z¿ E I'g:* t4 ¿ isiir l5 3 Dated: March 8,2018, Dated: March 8,2018 l=¡r= I6 t7 18 T9 20 2l SNELL & \ryILMER L.L.P. KIM GILBERT EBRON By /s/ Diana Cline Ebron Jacqueline A. Gilbert, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 10593 Diana Cline Ebron, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 10580 Karen L. Hanks, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 9578 7625Dean Martin Drive, Suite 110 Las Vegas, Nevada 89139 Attorneys þr Defendant SFR Investments Pool l, LLC By: /s/ Kiah D, Beverlv-Graham John S. Delikanakis, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 5928 Kiah D. Beverly-Graham, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 11916 50 V/est Liberty Street, Suite 510 Reno, Nevada 89501 Attorneys þr Plaintiff Ilells Fargo Bank, N.A. 22 ORDER 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED: 25 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 DATED: March 9, 2018 28 482s-7745-7483 4 . 1 CERTIFICATE OF'SERVICE 2 I hereby certify that on March 8, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk J of Court for the U.S. District Court, District of Nevada by using the Court's CM/ECF system. 4 Participants 5 system. in the case who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by the CM/ECF 6 /s/ Sheri Ouiglelt An Employee of Snell & Wilmer L.L.P 7 I 9 10 11 t2 br: El 13 2¿ E Ipï:* t4 ¿ isriË 15 = ¡ si:È ¿r "Ël 16 t7 18 tg 20 2T 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4825-7745-7483 5

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?