International Game Technology et al v. Illinois National Insurance Co.

Filing 94

ORDER granting 93 Stipulation; Motions due by 10/10/2018. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 11/7/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 8/3/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
REED SMITH LLP
10 S. Wacker Drive, 38th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60606

9
10
11
12
13

John D. Shugrue, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice)
Kevin B. Dreher, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice)
REED SMITH LLP
10 South Wacker Drive, Suite 4000
Chicago, Illinois 60606-7507
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail];
[e-mail]

Amy M. Samberg
Nevada Bar No. 10212
FORAN GLENNON PALANDECH
PONZI & RUDLOFF PC
One Renaissance Tower
Two North Central Avenue, 18th Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 312-863-5099
Email: [e-mail]

-andJustin S. Hepworth
Nevada Bar No. 10080
Casey G. Perkins
Nevada Bar No. 12063
FORAN GLENNON PALANDECH
PONZI & RUDLOFF PC
2200 Paseo Verde Parkway, Suite 280
Henderson, NV 89052
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 312-863-5099
E-Mail: [e-mail]

Andrew F. Dixon, Esq.
Nevada State Bar No. 8422
BOWLER DIXON & TWITCHELL LLP
3137 East Warm Springs Road, Ste. 100
Las Vegas, Nevada 89120
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs, INTERNATIONAL
GAME TECHNOLOGY and IGT-UK GROUP
LIMITED

Attorneys for Defendant ILLINOIS
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.

14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

16
17
18

21

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO
EXTEND DEADLINE TO FILE
DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS

Plaintiffs,

19
20

Civil No. 2:16-cv-02792

INTERNATIONAL GAME TECHNOLOGY
and IGT-UK GROUP LIMITED

v.

(Seventh Request)

ILLINOIS NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.

22

Defendant.

23

Plaintiffs International Game Technology and IGT-UK Group Limited (collectively

24

“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Illinois National Insurance Co. (“INIC”), by and through their

25

respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate and request for good cause showing that the

26

Court extend the deadline for the parties to file dispositive motions in this action by

27

approximately thirty (30) days from Monday, September 10, 2018 to October 10, 2018. The

28

1

1

parties also jointly request that the Court continue to defer ruling on Plaintiffs’ June 12, 2018

2

Motion to Compel Defendant to Produce Documents (dkt. 79) pending the parties’ settlement

3

negotiations. If the parties are unable to reach a settlement, they will jointly advise the Court

4

so that the motion may then be considered and ruled upon.

5

This is the second request by the parties since the close of discovery to specifically

6

extend the deadline to file dispositive motions and the seventh overall request by any party to

7

amend any case management deadlines in this matter.
As required by Local Rule 26-4, the parties state as follows:

9
REED SMITH LLP
10 S. Wacker Drive, 38th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60606

8

I.

DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO DATE

10



The parties conducted the Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) conference.

11



The parties have exchanged initial and supplementary disclosures of documents

12

and lists of witnesses, including the exchange of tens of thousands of pages of

13

documents.

14



15
16

INIC responded.


17
18



Plaintiffs propounded multiple sets of interrogatories and requests for admission
on INIC to which INIC has responded.



21
22

INIC propounded requests for production of documents and interrogatories on
Plaintiffs, to which Plaintiffs have responded.

19
20

Plaintiffs propounded multiple requests for production of documents, to which

INIC propounded requests for admission and additional requests for production
of documents to which Plaintiffs responded.



Plaintiffs have taken the depositions of INIC pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) as well

23

as four current and former claim handlers, a claim supervisor, a former

24

underwriter, and the Global Head of Financial Lines – Specialty Claims.

25



INIC has taken the deposition of Plaintiffs pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) as well as

26

two of Plaintiffs’ employees, Senior Legal Counsel for IGT-UK and Plaintiffs’

27

former risk manager.

28

2



1
2

Subpoenas have been issued to multiple nonparties requesting the production of
documents.

3



The parties have disclosed expert witnesses and rebuttal experts.

4



The parties have taken the depositions of multiple expert witnesses and

5

Defendant’s rebuttal expert.


6
7

correspondence regarding the above discovery.

8

II.

DISCOVERY TO BE COMPLETED


9
REED SMITH LLP
10 S. Wacker Drive, 38th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60606

The parties have engaged in multiple meet and confer teleconferences and

Plaintiffs and Defendants are awaiting resolution from the United States District

10

Court for the Southern District of New York on Plaintiffs’ pending motion to

11

enforce their subpoenas on Luigi Spadafora and Winget, Spadafora &

12

Schwartzberg, LLP and Defendants cross-motion to quash the same. Consistent

13

with the requests herein, the parties will also submit a request that the Southern

14

District of New York defer further briefing or decision on that motion.


15

Plaintiffs and Defendants are completing briefing on Plaintiffs’ Motion to

16

Compel pending before this Court. The parties request the Court continue to

17

defer ruling on that motion for the reasons stated herein.

18

III.

LEGAL STANDARD.

19

The Court has broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation, including

20

the timing of discovery. Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002).

21

Local Rule 26-4 provides that a request to extend discovery, “if made within 21 days of the

22

subject deadline,” requires a showing of “good cause.”

23

management deadline exists “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party

24

seeking the extension.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir.

25

1992).

26
27
28

IV.

Good cause to extend a case

REASONS WHY DISPOSITIVE MOTION FILINGS CANNOT BE
COMPLETED WITHIN THE CURRENT SCHEDULE

Plaintiffs and Defendant seek a thirty (30) day extension of the deadline for filing

3

1

dispositive motions primarily to allow for additional settlement negotiations to proceed. Over

2

the past several months, the parties have engaged in good faith settlement negotiations

3

concerning this action. Since the Court’s July 5, 2018 Order entering the parties’ Stipulation

4

And Order To Extend Deadline To File Dispositive Motions (dkt. 91), the parties settlement

5

negotiations have continued to progress. Another extension of the deadline to file dispositive

6

motions will provide the parties with the necessary time to explore further settlement

7

negotiations. Consequently, with good cause showing, the parties request that the Court extend

8

the deadline to file dispositive motions by thirty (30) days, as outlined below.

REED SMITH LLP
10 S. Wacker Drive, 38th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60606

9

As noted above, the parties also jointly request that the Court continue to defer ruling

10

on Plaintiffs’ June 12, 2018 Motion to Compel Defendant to Produce Documents (dkt.79)

11

pending the parties’ settlement negotiations. If the parties are unable to reach a settlement,

12

they will jointly advise the Court so that the motion may then be considered and ruled upon.

13

The parties agree that this stipulation and request is not made for the purpose of undue

14

delay, but to allow for additional time to explore further settlement negotiations. The parties

15

further agree that neither party will be prejudiced by an extension.

16

V.

17

PROPOSED SCHEDULE
WHEREFORE, the parties respectfully request that this Court extend the case

18

management deadlines in this matter as follows:

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

4

1

///

2

EVENT

CURRENT DEADLINE

REVISED DEADLINE

3

File Dispositive Motions

September 10, 2018

October 10, 2018

4

Joint Proposed Pretrial Order

October 8, 2018, or 30 days
after dispositive motions are
resolved

November 7, 2018, or 30
days after dispositive
motions are resolved

5
6
7

By: /s/ Kevin B. Dreher

By: /s/ Amy M. Samberg

13

John D. Shugrue, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice)
Kevin B. Dreher, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice)
REED SMITH LLP
10 South Wacker Drive, Suite 4000
Chicago, Illinois 60606-7507
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail];
[e-mail]

Amy M. Samberg
Nevada Bar No. 10212
FORAN GLENNON PALANDECH
PONZI & RUDLOFF PC
One Renaissance Tower
Two North Central Avenue, 18th Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 312-863-5099
Email: [e-mail]

14

-and-

15

Andrew F. Dixon, Esq.
Nevada State Bar No. 8422
BOWLER DIXON & TWITCHELL LLP
3137 East Warm Springs Road, Ste. 100
Las Vegas, Nevada 89120
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

8
9
REED SMITH LLP
10 S. Wacker Drive, 38th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60606

DATED this 3rd day of August, 2018.

10
11
12

16
17
18
19
20
21

Justin S. Hepworth
Nevada Bar No. 10080
Casey G. Perkins
Nevada Bar No. 12063
FORAN GLENNON PALANDECH
PONZI & RUDLOFF PC
2200 Paseo Verde Parkway, Suite 280
Henderson, NV 89052
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 312-863-5099
E-Mail: [e-mail]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, INTERNATIONAL
GAME TECHNOLOGY and IGT-UK GROUP
LIMITED

Attorneys for Defendant ILLINOIS
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.

22
ORDER
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS
WILL BE GRANTED.

August 3, 2018
DATED this _____ day of August, 2018.

25
26
27

____________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28

5