TPOV Enterprises 16, LLC v. Paris Las Vegas Operating Company, LLC
Filing
55
ORDER granting 53 Stipulation to Extend Discovery Deadlines. Discovery due by 1/9/2019. Motions due by 2/8/2019. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 3/7/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 5/10/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
1
2
3
4
5
James J. Pisanelli, Esq., Bar No. 4027
JJP@pisanellibice.com
Debra L. Spinelli, Esq., Bar No. 9695
DLS@pisanellibice.com
M. Magali Mercera, Esq., Bar No. 11742
MMM@pisanellibice.com
Brittnie T. Watkins, Esq., Bar No. 13612
BTW@pisanellibice.com
PISANELLI BICE PLLC
7
400 South 7th Street, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Telephone: 702.214.2100
Facsimile: 702.214.2101
8
Attorneys for Paris Las Vegas Operating Company, LLC
6
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
PISANELLI BICE PLLC
400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101
11
12
TPOV ENTERPRISES 16, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company,
CASE NO. 2:17-cv-00346-JCM-VCF
Plaintiff,
13
vs.
14
PARIS LAS VEGAS OPERATING
COMPANY, LLC, a Nevada limited liability
company,
15
16
17
18
Defendant.
PARIS LAS VEGAS OPERATING
COMPANY, LLC, a Nevada limited liability
company,
19
20
21
22
23
24
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO
EXTEND DISCOVERY (Third
Request)
vs.
Counterclaimant.
TPOV ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company, TPOV
ENTERPRISES 16, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, ROWEN SEIBEL, an
individual.
Counter-defendants.
25
26
Plaintiff/Counterdefendants TPOV Enterprises 16, LLC ("TPOV 16"), TPOV Enterprises,
27
LLC ("TPOV"), and Rowen Seibel ("Seibel") and Defendant/Counterclaimant Paris Las Vegas
28
Operating Company, LLC ("Paris") by and through their undersigned counsel of record, request an
1
1
order modifying the parties' Joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order, (ECF No. 17), as amended
2
November 3, 2017 (ECF No. 47). This is the third stipulation to extend discovery. In compliance
3
with LR IA 6-1 and LR 26-4, the parties submit as follows:
4
1.
STATEMENT OF DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO DATE.
5
The parties both served their initial disclosures on June 12, 2017.
6
Paris served its first supplemental disclosures on June 14, 2017.
7
TPOV 16 served its first supplemental disclosures on June 20, 2017.
8
On September 22, 2017, the parties exchanged proposed search terms for electronic
9
discovery.
On October 4, 2017, the parties met and conferred on proposed search terms.
11
PISANELLI BICE PLLC
400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101
10
On October 12, 2017, the parties exchanged revised search terms for electronic
12
13
discovery.
14
15
search terms.
16
17
On October 12, 2017, the parties met and conferred on revisions to the proposed
On October 23, 2017, TPOV 16 provided further revisions to search terms for
electronic discovery.
On October 31, 2017, Paris represented to TPOV 16 that Paris would be proceeding
18
with running TPOV 16’s search terms for electronic discovery and would present
19
preliminary results to TPOV 16 in the near future.
20
21
On November 9, 2017 TPOV 16 served its First Set of Request for Production of
Documents on Paris.
22
On December 4, 2017 TPOV 16 served its First Set of Interrogatories on Paris.
23
On December 13, 2017, Paris served its Reponses to TPOV 16's First Set of Request
24
25
for Production of Documents.
26
On January 9, 2017, Paris served its Responses to TPOV 16's First Set of
Interrogatories
27
On January 16, 2018, TPOV 16 issued a subpoena to third-party Trisha Thompson.
28
On January 16, 2018, TPOV 16 issued a subpoena to third-party Markita Thompson.
2
1
2
3
subpoena.
4
5
PISANELLI BICE PLLC
400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101
28
On April 3, 2018, Seibel served his Response to Paris' First Set of Requests for
Production of Documents.
26
27
On April 3, 2018, TPOV 16 served its Response to Paris' First Set of Requests for
Production of Documents.
24
25
On April 3, 2018, TPOV served its Response to Paris' First Set of Requests for
Production of Documents.
22
23
On March 2, 2018, TPOV 16 agreed to Paris' proposed categories of documents to
respond to TPOV 16's discovery requests.
20
21
On February 28, 2018, Paris served its First Set of Requests for Production of
Documents to TPOV 16.
18
19
On February 28, 2018, Paris served its First Set of Requests for Production of
Documents to TPOV.
16
17
On February 28, 2018, Paris served its First Set of Requests for Production of
Documents to Seibel.
14
15
On February 22, 2018, Paris proposed categories of documents to respond to TPOV
16's discovery requests.
12
13
On February 12, 2018, TPOV 16 provided further revisions to search terms for
electronic discovery.
10
11
On February 9, 2018, Paris requested additional revisions to the proposed search
terms due to the volume of results.
8
9
On February 1, 2018, Markita Thompson served her objections to TPOV 16's
subpoena.
6
7
On February 1, 2018, Trisha Thompson served her objections to TPOV 16's
On April 4, 2018, TPOV 16 requested to provide categories of documents to respond
to Paris' discovery requests.
On April 4, 2018, Paris responded to TPOV 16's request regarding proposed
categories of documents to respond to Paris' discovery requests.
3
1
On April 6, 2018, TPOV and Seibel served their first production of documents.
2
On May 4, 2018, Paris served its second supplemental disclosures.
3
On May 7, 2018, Paris served its First Supplemental Responses to TPOV 16's First
4
5
Set of Interrogatories.
2.
6
SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF DISCOVERY THAT REMAINS TO BE
COMPLETED.
The parties anticipate completing the production of documents, propounding and
8
responding to additional requests for production, interrogatories, and requests for admissions,
9
conducting depositions, engaging in expert discovery, and conducting third-party document and
10
deposition discovery. Additionally, the parties are at an impasse on certain requests for discovery
11
PISANELLI BICE PLLC
400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101
7
and anticipate motion practice to resolve the dispute.
12
3.
13
DISCOVERY REMAINING CANNOT BE COMPLETED WITHIN THE TIME
LIMITS SET BY THE DISCOVERY PLAN.1
14
Initially, the parties have agreed to extend the discovery cut-off deadline because a stay
15
order was in place from the outset of the action. (ECF No. 23.) In particular, this Court's order
16
provided for a stay of all discovery except initial disclosures and jurisdictional discovery. The stay
17
was lifted on July 5, 2017, when the Court ruled on Paris' Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 30.) Since
18
the stay was lifted, the parties entered into a Stipulated Protocol Governing Production of
19
Electronically Stored Informed (ESI) and a Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and Protective
20
Order. (See ECF No. 26 and ECF No. 29.) Additionally, the parties have further exchanged search
21
terms, begun rolling productions of supplemental documents, served written discovery, and begun
22
discussing depositions. Through these discussions, the parties have determined that more time than
23
originally anticipated is necessary to complete discovery. The current July 9, 2018 discovery cut-
24
off does not provide sufficient time for the parties to engage in and complete discovery. An
25
26
27
28
1
On April 4, 2018, Paris filed a Motion to Stay this action pending resolution of a parallel
state court action. (ECF No. 49.) This stipulation is independent of and unrelated to the Motion to
Stay as the parties intend continue conducting discovery until the Court issues a decision on that
Motion.
4
1
extension of the discovery cut-off date to January 9, 2019 will provide both parties with the time
2
needed to conduct and complete discovery.
3
4.
4
5
PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING REMAINING DISCOVERY.
The parties have agreed to a discovery cut-off date of January 9, 2019 with corresponding
deadlines as follows:
6
Current Deadline Date
Proposed Deadline Date
7
Discovery Cut-off
July 9, 2018
January 9, 2019
8
Amend Pleadings/Add
Parties
Expert Disclosures
April 10, 2018
No Change
May 10, 2018
November 13, 2018
10
Rebuttal Expert Disclosures
June 11, 2018
December 11, 2018
11
Dispositive Motions
August 8, 2018
February 8, 2019
12
Interim Status Report
May 10, 2018
November 13, 2018
Pre-Trial Order
September 7, 2018
March 7, 2019
PISANELLI BICE PLLC
400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101
9
13
14
If dispositive motions are filed, the joint pretrial order shall be due thirty (30) days from the
15
entry of the court's rulings on the motions or by further order of the court. See LR 26-1(b)(5).
16
5.
GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO EXTEND TIME TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY.
17
A stipulation to extend discovery deadlines must be supported by a showing of good cause.
18
LR 26-4; Branch Banking & Tr. Co. v. D.M.S.I., LLC, 871 F.3d 751, 764 (9th Cir. 2017). "The
19
good cause inquiry focuses primarily on the [parties'] diligence." Derosa v. Blood Sys., Inc., No.
20
2:13-CV-0137-JCM-NJK, 2013 WL 3975764, at *1 (D. Nev. Aug. 1, 2013) (citation omitted). If,
21
despite the parties' diligence, discovery cannot reasonably be completed within the deadlines, good
22
cause to extend discovery exists. Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir.
23
2002). Where an extension is requested less than twenty-one (21) days before expiration of a
24
deadline, a showing of excusable neglect must be made. LR 26-4; Derosa, 2013 WL 3975764, at
25
*1. "[W]hether neglect is excusable is an equitable [question] that depends on at least four factors:
26
(1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact
27
on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith."
28
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.
5
1
Bateman v. U.S. Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1223–24 (9th Cir. 2000); Derosa, 2013 WL 3975764,
2
at *1 (applying Rule 60(b)(1)'s definition of excusable neglect to LR 26-4).
The parties have been diligent in pursuing discovery. As stated above, a stay order
4
prohibited the parties from doing all but producing initial disclosures and engaging in jurisdictional
5
discovery. Since the stay was lifted and the previous scheduling order was entered, the parties have
6
agreed to the form of production for ESI, refined specific search terms in furtherance of ESI
7
production, served thousands of pages of documents, propounded to and responded to written
8
discovery, and engaged in meet and confers regarding certain discovery disputes. Despite the
9
diligence of all parties, the parties have determined that more time than originally anticipated is
10
necessary for discovery. Indeed, despite the parties' diligence, discovery cannot reasonably be
11
PISANELLI BICE PLLC
400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101
3
completed within the deadlines, and good cause to extend discovery deadlines exists.
12
Any neglect assigned to the parties is excusable. First, there is no danger of prejudice. Both
13
parties agree that it is in their best interests to extend discovery deadlines. Second, the length of
14
the delay will not substantively impact the proceedings as the parties have been and continue to
15
actively conduct discovery. Third, the parties' delay in submitting the stipulation is excusable. The
16
parties have been engaged in motion practice in a related case pending before the Eighth Judicial
17
District Court, including the briefing of a motion to dismiss and Paris and its related parties
18
opposing multiple motions to dismiss in that proceeding, which were resolved on May 1, 2018.
19
Finally, the parties have acted in good faith. The parties met and conferred regarding an extension
20
to the deadlines and intended to submit a stipulation following the resolution of the motions being
21
addressed in the Eighth Judicial District Court.
22
///
23
///
24
25
26
27
28
6
1
This proposed Stipulation and Order to extend deadlines for discovery is made in good faith,
2
with good cause, and not for purposes of unduly delaying discovery or trial. In light of the stay
3
order, the voluminous number of documents to be reviewed as a result of the exchanged search
4
terms, and the simultaneous motion practice in related proceedings, extension of the discovery
5
deadlines is warranted. Therefore, the parties respectfully request that this Court grant the requested
6
discovery extension.
7
DATED this 10th day of May 2018.
DATED this 10th day of May 2018.
8
PISANELLI BICE PLLC
MCNUTT LAW FIRM, P.C.
By:
By:
9
10
PISANELLI BICE PLLC
400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101
11
12
13
14
/s M. Magali Mercera
James J. Pisanelli, Esq., Bar No. 4027
Debra L. Spinelli, Esq., Bar No. 9695
M. Magali Mercera, Esq., Bar No. 11742
Brittnie T. Watkins, Esq., Bar No. 13612
400 South 7th Street, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Attorneys for Paris Las Vegas Operating
Company, LLC
15
/s/ Dan McNutt
Dan McNutt, Esq., Bar No. 7815
Matthew Wolf, Esq., Bar No. 10801
625 S. 8th Street
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
CERTILMAN BALIN ADLER & HYMAN,
LLP
By:
/s/ Paul Sweeney
Paul Sweeney, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice)
90 Merrick Avenue, 9th Floor
East Meadow, NY 11544
16
17
Attorneys for TPOV Enterprises 16, LLC,
TPOV Enterprises, LLC, and Rowen Seibel
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
May 10, 2018
DATED:
25
26
27
28
7
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?