Hunt v. Zuffa, LLC et al

Filing 218

ORDER Granting 217 Stipulation to Extend Discovery Deadlines (First Request). Discovery due by 12/13/2022. Motions due by 1/13/2023. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 2/13/2023. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 8/26/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TRW)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 CHRISTINA DENNING, ESQ. (CA Bar No. 211137) DENNING MOORES, APC 12526 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130 T: 858.356.5610 F: 858.356.5508 BRIAN W. BOSCHEE, ESQ. (NV Bar No. 7612) JESSICA M. LUJAN, ESQ. (NV Bar No. 14913) HOLLEY DRIGGS 300 S. Fourth St., Suite 1600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 T: 702.791.0308 F: 702.791.1912 Attorneys for Plaintiff Mark Hunt 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 13 MARK HUNT, an individual, 14 Plaintiff, 15 16 17 18 v. ZUFFA, LLC d/b/a ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP, a Nevada limited liability company; BROCK LESNAR, an individual; DANA WHITE, an individual, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, 19 Case No.: 2:17-cv-00085-JAD-VCF STIPULATION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES FIRST REQUEST1 Defendants. 20 Pursuant to LR IA 6-1, LR IA 6-2, LR II 7-1, and LR II 26-3, Plaintiff Mark Hunt 21 (“Plaintiff”), by and through his undersigned counsel, Defendant Brock Lesnar (“Lesnar”), by and 22 through his undersigned counsel, and Defendants Zuffa, LLC (“UFC”) and Dana White (“White”), 23 by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate, contingent upon this Court’s approval 24 to extend the remaining discovery deadlines set forth in the Court’s Scheduling Order (ECF No. 25 215). This is the parties’ first request to extend the subject deadlines. 26 /// 27 1 28 This is the parties’ first request for an extension of the deadlines set forth in the Court’s Scheduling Order entered post-remand (ECF No. 215). 1 A. 2 In addition to the voluminous written discovery that the parties exchanged and responded 3 4 5 6 to prior to the appeal, the parties have completed the following further discovery post-remand: Date 3/18/2022 3/23/2022 5/20/2022 7 8 9 10 7/6/2022 7/15/2022 8/4/2022 8/15/2022 8/16/2022 8/18/2022 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 The Discovery Completed to Date: Discovery Event UFC served a subpoena for documents to non-party USADA Lesnar served Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for Admission on Plaintiff Plaintiff responded to Lesnar’s Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for Admission Plaintiff served a subpoena for documents to non-party USADA The parties disclosed their Initial Designation of Expert Witnesses Plaintiff served Requests for Production to UFC (responses not yet due) Plaintiff disclosed his Initial Expert Reports UFC noticed Plaintiff’s deposition (September 16, 2022) Parties confirmed deposition dates for White and non-party Jeff Novitzky (10/2728, Notices forthcoming) In addition to the above events, the parties have engaged at length regarding counsel’s and the parties’ availability for depositions, as well as the depositions of certain additional non-parties. Given various scheduling conflicts amongst counsel and the parties (and non-parties), as well as the parties’ ongoing disagreement regarding the propriety of certain non-party depositions, the parties anticipate the need for an extension of the discovery deadline to accommodate the remaining depositions that remain outstanding. This includes the depositions of Defendant White and non-party Jeff Novitzsky, which depositions are already scheduled to take place after the current close of discovery by necessity of the parties’ and counsel’s respective availability. 20 21 22 23 24 25 B. The Discovery that Remains to be Completed: Discovery that remains to be completed includes the depositions of each of the parties and certain non-party percipient witnesses. Additional written discovery may also be appropriate. C. The Reasons Why Specified Discovery Has Yet to Be Completed: As stated above, the parties have had difficulty identifying dates, times, and locations that 26 work for all of the parties (and non-parties) and their counsel to take depositions in this matter. 27 This difficulty is exacerbated by Plaintiff’s residence in Australia, and by each of the parties’ 28 2 1 uniquely busy travel and work schedules. However, the parties have already begun to identify 2 dates that are workable and issued Notices of Deposition accordingly. As such, the parties are 3 requesting an extension of the discovery deadline sufficient to accommodate the various 4 5 depositions sought by the parties. 6 D. 7 By this stipulation, the parties agree and request a sixty-day extension of the following 8 deadlines (adjusted as necessary for holidays or weekends) set forth in the Scheduling Order (ECF 9 No. 215): A Proposed Schedule for Completing All Remaining Discovery: 14 Discovery Event Amending Pleadings / Adding Parties Discovery Completion Initial Disclosure of Experts Initial Disclosure of Expert Reports Rebuttal Expert Opinions Dispositive Motions Pre-Trial Order 15 E. Good Cause 10 11 12 13 Current Deadline July 18, 2022 October 14, 2022 July 15, 2022 August 15, 2022 September 14, 2022 November 14, 2022 December 14, 2022 Extended Deadline No change December 13, 2022 No change No change No change January 13, 2023 February 13, 2023 If dispositive motions are filed, the deadline for filing the joint pretrial order will be suspended until 30 days after decision on the dispositive motions or further court order. 16 Pursuant to LR IA 6-1(a) and LR II 26-3, good cause exists to extend the deadlines under 17 the Scheduling Order, as the parties have been diligently cooperating to identify dates and locations 18 for the various depositions that must be taken in this matter. Despite various scheduling conflicts 19 amongst counsel and the parties alike, the parties have begun to select firm dates for certain 20 depositions and request the instant extension to accommodate those dates. 21 22 23 /// 24 25 26 /// 27 28 3 1 IT IS SO AGREED AND STIPULATED. 2 3 Respectfully submitted this 24th day of August 2022. 4 HOLLEY DRIGGS CAMPBELL & WILLIAMS 5 /s/ Jessica M. Lujan Brian W. Boschee, Esq. (NBN 7612) Jessica M. Lujan, Esq. (NBN 14913) 400 South Fourth Street, Third Floor Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 /s/ J. Colby Williams J. Colby Williams, Esq. (NBN 5549) Donald J. Campbell, Esq. (NBN 1216) Philip R. Erwin, Esq. (NBN 11563) 710 S. Seventh Street, Ste. A Las Vegas, NV 89101 6 7 8 And Attorneys for Defendants Zuffa, LLC and Dana White 9 10 11 12 Christina Denning, Esq. DENNING MOORES, APC 12526 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130 CHRISTIANSEN TRIAL LAWYERS /s/ David Olsen Peter S. Christiansen, Esq. (NBN 5254) Kendelee L. Works (NBN 9611) 710 S. Seventh Street, Ste. B Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Attorneys for Plaintiff Mark Hunt 13 14 15 16 And 17 David Olsen, Esq. (pro hac vice) HENSON & EFRON, P.A. 225 South Sixth Street, Suite 1600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 18 19 Attorneys for Defendant Brock Lesnar 20 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED: 23 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE / UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 DATED: 27 28 4 8-26-2022 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 and the Court’s Local Rules, I hereby 3 certify that on August 24th, 2022, a copy of the foregoing document titled STIPULATION 4 TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES (FIRST REQUEST) was efiled/emailed to 5 all parties and their counsel. 6 J. Colby Williams, Esq. Donald J. Campbell, Esq. Philip R. Erwin, Esq. CAMPBELL & WILLIAMS 710 S. Seventh Street, Suite A Las Vegas NV 89101 7 8 9 10 11 Attorneys for Defendants Zuffa, LLC & Dana White 13 Peter S. Christiansen, Esq. Kendelee L. Works, Esq. CHRISTIANSEN TRIAL LAWYERS 710 S. Seventh Street, Suite B Las Vegas NV 89101 14 & 15 Howard L. Jacobs, Esq. Law Offices of Howard L. Jacobs 2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 200 Westlake Village, CA 91361 12 16 17 18 & 20 David B. Olsen, Esq. HENSON & EFRON PA 225 S. Sixth Street, Suite 1600 Minneapolis MN 55402 21 Attorneys for Defendant Brock Lesnar 19 22 23 24 25 /s/ Sandy Sell An employee of HOLLEY DRIGGS 26 27 28 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?