Cirrus Aviation Services, LLC v. Cirrus Design Corporation

Filing 53

ORDER granting 52 Stipulation. Discovery due by 7/2/2019. Motions due by 8/2/2019. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 9/6/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 3/18/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

Case 2:16-cv-02656-JAD-GWF Document 52 Filed 03/15/19 Page 1 of 5

1
2
3
4
5
6

Michael J. McCue (Nevada Bar #6055)
Meng Zhong (Nevada Bar #12145)
LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP
3993 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 600
Las Vegas, NV 89169-5996
Tele: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant/Counter-Claimant
Cirrus Design Corporation

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9
10
11
12
13

CIRRUS AVIATION SERVICES, LLC,

Case No. 2:16-cv-02656-JAD-GWF

v.

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO EXTEND CASE
MANAGEMENT DEADLINES

CIRRUS DESIGN CORPORATION,

(Third Request)

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,

Defendant/Counter-Claimant.

14
15

Pursuant to Local Rules 7-1 and 26-4, Plaintiff Cirrus Aviation Services, LLC

16

(“Cirrus Aviation”) and Defendant Cirrus Design Corporation d/b/a Cirrus Aircraft (“Cirrus

17

Aircraft”), by and through their respective counsel, hereby agree and stipulate to extend

18

certain case management deadlines set forth in the Court’s Scheduling Order (ECF No. 30)

19

and Order Granting Stipulation to Extend Discovery Deadlines (ECF No. 35) for a period of

20

45 days. This is the parties’ third request for an extension of time. Two prior extensions have

21

been granted. The parties’ stipulation is supported by the following:

22

I.

Good Cause.

23

Good cause for the requested extensions of time exists. The Parties have worked

24

diligently to meet the Court-ordered fact discovery deadline of May 18, 2019. Both parties

25

have exchanged and requested document production, and are currently discussing dates to

26

complete depositions of lay and expert witnesses. The parties have encountered significant

27

deposition scheduling challenges on both sides, but are continuing to communicate and

28

attempting to cooperate in scheduling depositions.
107591492.1

-1-

Case 2:16-cv-02656-JAD-GWF Document 52 Filed 03/15/19 Page 2 of 5

1

Shortly after the second extension was granted by this Court on January 30, 2019,

2

Defendant Cirrus Aircraft began trying to find available dates for the 30(b)(6) corporate

3

deposition of Cirrus Design noticed by Plaintiff Cirrus Aviation. Cirrus Aircraft’s efforts to

4

find dates for that deposition was complicated by several factors, including the following:
•

5

The list of topics identified by Cirrus Aviation for the 30(b)(6) deposition was

6

lengthy and detailed, encompassing 29 separate topics. Cirrus Aircraft

7

determined that the most appropriate witnesses to represent it were three high-

8

ranking executives, including its President of Customer Experience and SVP

9

of Sales and Marketing, all of whom maintain extremely busy travel
schedules;

10
•

11

Cirrus Aircraft sought back-to-back dates when all three corporate designees

12

could be available in the same city, assuming that the deposition would take

13

two days to complete;
•

14

Many of the most time-consuming and important events on Cirrus Aircraft’s

15

2019 calendar occur during the first four months of the year and require

16

extensive preparation and travel, including widely-attended air shows in

17

Florida and Germany and Cirrus Aircraft’s own board meeting in China,

18

among other business commitments. The business responsibilities of the

19

proposed 30(b)(6) corporate designees require their attendance at these

20

events;
•

21

Cirrus Aircraft determined that the three corporate designees could first be

22

available on consecutive dates on April 30 and May 1, 2019. Cirrus Aircraft

23

proposed that Cirrus Aviation hold the deposition on those dates in Knoxville,

24

Tennessee, where two of the designees are based;
•

25

Counsel for Cirrus Aviation was unavailable on April 30 and May 1, so Cirrus

26

Aircraft cleared and proposed alternate dates, May 9 and 10, and

27

cooperatively agreed to conduct the deposition in Las Vegas, Nevada, where

28

Cirrus Aviation’s counsel is based. Cirrus Aviation expressed concerns that
107591492.1

-2-

Case 2:16-cv-02656-JAD-GWF Document 52 Filed 03/15/19 Page 3 of 5

1

all of these proposed dates would result in the deposition occurring shortly

2

before discovery currently closes on May 19, 2019 and would not provide

3

adequate time for any follow-up discovery after the 30(b)(6) deposition.

4

While Cirrus Aviation is potentially amenable to taking the depositions on

5

May 9 and 10 in Las Vegas, agreement to do so is contingent on the extensions

6

contemplated in this stipulation being granted.

7

Cirrus Aviation has also encountered challenges in scheduling dates for the

8

depositions that Cirrus Aircraft wants to take of Cirrus Aviation’s current and past

9

executives:
•

10

Cirrus Aircraft has requested that that Cirrus Aviation provide available dates

11

for the depositions of Mark Woods, Greg Woods, and Milt Woods, all of

12

whom are identified in Cirrus Aviation’s Initial Disclosures and/or in

13

documents produced in discovery as potential witnesses;
•

14

On March 8, 2019, Cirrus Aircraft served a notice of FRCP 30(b)(6)

15

deposition on Cirrus Aviation. The notice identified 21 topics of inquiry plus

16

subparts. Cirrus Aviation anticipates that some combination of Mark Woods,

17

Greg Woods, Milt Woods, and potentially others will be designated to testify

18

on its behalf. Mark Woods and Milt Woods are pilots with variable work

19

schedules, while Greg Woods is generally available on Tuesday and

20

Wednesdays. Before pinning down dates for the individual depositions of

21

Mark, Greg, and Milt Woods, and before setting the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition

22

for Cirrus Aviation, Cirrus Aviation sought to establish the dates of Cirrus

23

Aircraft’s deposition, which was noticed first.
•

24

Because the parties anticipate the distinct possibility of needing to take other

25

depositions, based on the testimony obtained during the initial depositions

26

identified above, the parties determined that taking these initial depositions

27

near the end of the existing discovery period would likely lead to difficulties

28

in completing discovery under the current deadlines.
107591492.1

-3-

Case 2:16-cv-02656-JAD-GWF Document 52 Filed 03/15/19 Page 4 of 5

1

In addition, counsel for both parties, including lead counsel, have been extremely

2

busy with other matters in early 2019, including lengthy jury trials for both Defendant’s lead

3

counsel and Plaintiff’s lead counsel.
The parties now jointly seek to extend the deadline for the close of discovery by 45

4
5

days, from May 18, 2019 to July 2, 2019, and to adjust all case deadlines accordingly.

6

II.

Statement Specifying the Discovery Completed to Date.
The parties have completed the following phases of discovery:

7
8

•

The parties held their Rule 26(f) conference on May 22, 2018.

9

•

The parties exchanged their Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures on June 16, 2018.

10

•

The parties have exchanged and requested written discovery and relevant

11

documents, and supplemented these documents where necessary throughout

12

the discovery period.

13

•

The parties submitted their Interim Status Report on December 19, 2018.

14

•

Cirrus Aviation has submitted its Initial Expert Disclosure.

15

•

Cirrus Aircraft has submitted a Rebuttal Expert Disclosure.

16

III.

A Specific Description of the Discovery that Remains to be Completed.

17

The parties must still take lay witness and expert witness depositions. It is possible

18

that additional document discovery (via FRCP 34 or FRCP 45) may be required after

19

depositions are taken.

20

The parties are still engaged in discussions regarding written discovery, and each

21

party has raised issues about the other party’s discovery responses and document production,

22

which they are attempting to resolve.

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
107591492.1

-4-

Case 2:16-cv-02656-JAD-GWF Document 52 Filed 03/15/19 Page 5 of 5

1
2
3
4

IV.

A Proposed Schedule for Completing all Remaining Discovery.
The parties propose the following extensions of deadlines set forth in the Order

Granting Stipulation to Extend Discovery Deadlines:
Event

Current Date

Parties’ Stipulated
Proposal

6

Close of fact discovery (LR 26-2)

May 18, 2019

July 2, 2019

7

June 16, 2019

August 2, 2019

8

Last day to file dispositive motions
(Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(b); LR 7-2(e);
LR 26-1(e)(4))

9

Motions in limine due (LR 16-3)

30 days prior to trial

30 days prior to trial

Joint Pretrial Order due (LR 26-1)

July 16, 2019

September 6, 2019

5

10
11
12

IT IS SO AGREED AND STIPULATED this 15th day of March, 2019:

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

LEWIS ROCA
ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP

FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP

By: /s/ Meng Zhong
Michael J. McCue (Nevada Bar #6055)
Meng Zhong (Nevada Bar #12145)
3993 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 600
Las Vegas, NV 89169-5996

By: /s/ Kevin M. Sutehall
Mark J. Connot (Nevada Bar #10010)
Kevin M. Sutehall (Nevada Bar #9437)
1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 700
Las Vegas, NV 89135

Attorneys for Defendant/Counter-Claimant
Cirrus Design Corporation

Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant
Cirrus Aviation Services, LLC

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED:

22
23
24

___________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25

3/18/2019
DATED: ____________________________

26
27
28
107591492.1

-5-