TPOV Enterprises 16, LLC v. Paris Las Vegas Operating Company, LLC
Filing
90
ORDER granting 89 Stipulation. Discovery due by 5/9/2019. Motions due by 9/6/2019. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 10/6/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 3/19/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
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
400 South 7th Street, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Telephone: 702.214.2100
Attorneys for Paris Las Vegas
Operating Company, LLC
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
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO
EXTEND DISCOVERY (Sixth
Request)
PARIS LAS VEGAS OPERATING
COMPANY, LLC, a Nevada limited liability
company,
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Defendant.
PARIS LAS VEGAS OPERATING
COMPANY, LLC, a Nevada limited liability
company,
vs.
Counterclaimant.
TPOV ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company, TPOV
ENTERPRISES 16, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, Rowen Siebel, 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), May 10, 2018 (ECF No. 55), November 13, 2018 (ECF No. 68),
3
and February 6, 2019 (ECF 84). This is the sixth stipulation to extend discovery. In compliance
4
with LR IA 6-1 and LR 26-4, the parties submit as follows:
5
1.
STATEMENT OF DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO DATE.
6
The parties both served their initial disclosures on June 12, 2017.
7
Paris served its first supplemental disclosures on June 14, 2017.
8
TPOV 16 served its first supplemental disclosures on June 20, 2017.
9
On September 22, 2017, the parties exchanged proposed search terms for
10
electronic discovery.
PISANELLI BICE PLLC
400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101
11
On October 4, 2017, the parties met and conferred on proposed search terms.
12
On October 12, 2017, the parties exchanged revised search terms for electronic
13
14
discovery.
15
16
search terms.
17
18
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
19
proceeding with running TPOV 16's search terms for electronic discovery and
20
would present preliminary results to TPOV 16 in the near future.
21
22
On November 9, 2017 TPOV 16 served its First Set of Request for Production of
Documents on Paris.
23
On December 4, 2017 TPOV 16 served its First Set of Interrogatories on Paris.
24
On December 13, 2017, Paris served its Reponses to TPOV 16's First Set of
25
26
27
Request for Production of Documents.
On January 9, 2017, Paris served its Responses to TPOV 16's First Set of
Interrogatories.
28
2
1
2
On January 16, 2018, TPOV 16 issued a subpoena to third-party Trisha
Thompson.
3
•
On January 16, 2018, TPOV 16 issued a subpoena to third-party Markita Thompson.
4
On February 1, 2018, Trisha Thompson served her objections to TPOV 16's
5
6
subpoena.
7
8
subpoena.
9
10
PISANELLI BICE PLLC
400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101
27
On April 3, 2018, TPOV served its Response to Paris' First Set of Requests for
Production of Documents.
25
26
On March 2, 2018, TPOV 16 agreed to Paris' proposed categories of documents
to respond to TPOV 16's discovery requests.
23
24
On February 28, 2018, Paris served its First Set of Requests for Production of
Documents to TPOV 16.
21
22
On February 28, 2018, Paris served its First Set of Requests for Production of
Documents to TPOV.
19
20
On February 28, 2018, Paris served its First Set of Requests for Production of
Documents to Seibel.
17
18
On February 22, 2018, Paris proposed categories of documents to respond to
TPOV 16's discovery requests.
15
16
On February 12, 2018, TPOV 16 provided further revisions to search terms for
electronic discovery.
13
14
On February 9, 2018, Paris requested additional revisions to the proposed search
terms due to the volume of results.
11
12
On February 1, 2018, Markita Thompson served her objections to TPOV 16's
On April 3, 2018, TPOV 16 served its Response to Paris' First Set of Requests for
Production of Documents.
On April 3, 2018, Seibel served his Response to Paris' First Set of Requests for
Production of Documents.
28
3
1
2
3
Court Action (ECF No. 49).
4
5
On April 4, 2018, Paris filed a Motion to Stay Pending Resolution of Parallel State
On April 4, 2018, TPOV 16 requested to provide categories of documents to
respond to Paris' discovery requests.
6
On April 4, 2018, Paris responded to TPOV 16's request regarding proposed
categories of documents to respond to Paris' discovery requests.
7
On April 6, 2018, TPOV and Seibel served their first production of documents.
8
On May 4, 2018, Paris served its second supplemental disclosures.
9
On May 7, 2018, Paris served its First Supplemental Responses to TPOV 16's First
10
PISANELLI BICE PLLC
400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101
11
Set of Interrogatories.
12
13
(ECF No. 56).
14
15
On May 24, 2018, TPOV 16 filed its Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories
On June 21, 2018, the Court granted, in part, and denied, in part, TPOV 16's Motion
to Compel Responses to Interrogatories (ECF No. 64).
16
On July 12, 2018, Paris served its Second Supplemental and Amended Responses
to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories.
17
On August 3, 2018, TPOV and Seibel served eight (8) notices of deposition on Paris.
18
On August 3, 2018, TPOV and Seibel served its Second Supplemental Initial
19
20
Disclosures.
21
22
to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories.
23
24
On October 19, 2018, Paris served its Third Supplemental and Amended Responses
On October 22, 2018, the Court denied Paris' Motion to Stay Pending Resolution
of Parallel State Court Action (ECF No. 65).
25
On December 5, 2018, TPOV 16 served its First Set of Requests for Production of
Documents to Paris.
26
On December 5, 2018, TPOV 16 issued a subpoena to third-party Gordon Ramsay.
27
On December 5, 2018, TPOV 16 issued a subpoena to third-party Gordon Ramsay
28
Holdings, Ltd.
4
1
2
3
On December 12, 2018, TPOV 16 filed its Motion to Compel Responses to
Subpoenas Duces Tecum (ECF No. 69).
4
On December 12, 2018, Trisha Thompson and Markita Thompson filed their
Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoenas or for Protective Order (ECF No. 71).
5
On December 13, 2018, TPOV 16 served its third supplemental disclosures.
6
On December 20, 2018, Paris served its First Set of Requests for Admission to
7
8
TPOV.
9
On December 20, 2018, Paris served its First Set of Requests for Admission to
Rowen Seibel.
On December 20, 2018, Paris served its First Set of Interrogatories to TPOV 16.
11
PISANELLI BICE PLLC
400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101
10
On December 20, 2018, Paris served its First Set of Interrogatories to TPOV.
12
On December 20, 2018, Paris served its First Set of Interrogatories to Rowen
13
14
Seibel.
15
16
subpoena.
17
18
27
On January 22, 2019, Rowen Seibel served his responses to Paris' first set of
requests for admission.
25
26
On January 22, 2019, TPOV served its responses to Paris' first set of requests for
admission.
23
24
On January 4, 2019, Paris served its responses to TPOV 16's Second Set of
Requests for the Production of Documents.
21
22
On December 31, 2018, Gordon Ramsay Holdings, Ltd. served its objections to
TPOV 16's subpoena.
19
20
On December 31, 2018, Gordon Ramsay served his objections to TPOV 16's
On January 22, 2019, TPOV 16 served its responses to Paris' first set of
interrogatories.
On January 22, 2019, TPOV served its responses to Paris' first set of
interrogatories.
28
5
1
2
On January 22, 2019, Rowen Seibel served his responses to Paris' first set of
interrogatories.
3
The parties filed their Joint Interim Status Report on February 11, 2019.
4
On January 24, 2019, Paris served its fourth supplemental disclosures.
5
On February 28, 2019 Paris and nonparties Trisha Thompson and Markita
6
Thompson served declarations to TPOV 16 pursuant to the Court's Order entered
7
on January 29, 2019 (ECF 83).
8
9
disclosures.
10
PISANELLI BICE PLLC
400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101
11
On March 5, 2019, TPOV, TPOV 16, and Seibel served their final supplemental
2.
The parties have also discussed scheduling dates for 20 witnesses1:
SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF DISCOVERY THAT REMAINS TO BE
12
COMPLETED.
13
The parties anticipate completing the production of documents, serving privilege logs,
14
propounding and responding to additional written discovery, conducting depositions, engaging in
15
expert discovery, and conducting third-party document and deposition discovery.
16
3.
DISCOVERY REMAINING CANNOT BE COMPLETED WITHIN THE TIME
17
LIMITS SET BY THE DISCOVERY PLAN.
18
Initially, the parties agreed to extend the discovery cut-off deadline because a stay order was
19
in place from the outset of the action. (ECF No. 23.) In particular, this Court's order provided for a
20
stay of all discovery except initial disclosures and jurisdictional discovery. The stay was lifted on
21
July 5, 2017, when the Court ruled on Paris' Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 30.) Since the stay was
22
lifted, the parties entered into a Stipulated Protocol Governing Production of Electronically Stored
23
Informed (ESI) and a Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order. (See ECF No. 26
24
and ECF No. 29.) Additionally, the parties have exchanged search terms, continued to make rolling
25
productions of supplemental documents, served and responded to written discovery, met and
26
conferred on multiple occasions to resolve discovery disputes, engaged in motion practice regarding
27
28
1
The parties reserve all rights as to specific objections to these depositions.
6
1
discovery disputes, and begun discussing and noticing depositions. In addition, on or about August
2
9, 2018, the parties agreed to attempt to resolve this action, as well as a number of related actions
3
through mediation. The mediation was held on October 12, 2018. This action was not resolved.
The parties previously agreed to tiered discovery, so that expert discovery would proceed
5
after fact discovery was completed. To that end, the parties are in the process of scheduling 20
6
depositions before the close of fact discovery. While scheduling is ongoing, there are several factors
7
that have hampered the parties' efforts, including the witnesses' availability, the location of the
8
witnesses (several witnesses are located outside of the jurisdiction and will require travel), and
9
counsel's availability. In order to allow sufficient time to complete fact discovery, the parties
10
propose extending the present deadlines by 30 days to provide both parties with the time needed to
11
PISANELLI BICE PLLC
400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101
4
complete fact discovery in advance of expert discovery.
12 4.
PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING REMAINING DISCOVERY.
13
The parties have agreed to a fact discovery cut-off date of May 9, 2019 and an expert
14
discovery cut-off date of July 8, 2019, with corresponding deadlines as follows:
15
Current Deadline Date
Proposed Deadline Date
16
Fact Discovery Cut-off
April 9, 2019
May 9, 2019
17
April 10, 2018
No Change
18
Amend Pleadings/Add
Parties
Expert Disclosures
May 9, 2019
June 7, 2019
19
Rebuttal Expert Disclosures
June 7, 2019
July 8, 2019
20
Dispositive Motions
August 9, 2019
September 6, 2019
21
Interim Status Report
February 11, 2019
No Change
22
Pre-Trial Order
September 6, 2019
October 6, 2019
23
24
25
If dispositive motions are filed, the joint pre-trial order shall be due thirty (30) days from the
entry of the court's rulings on the motions or by further order of the court. See LR 26-1(b)(5).
26
27
28
7
5.
2
A stipulation to extend discovery deadlines must be supported by a showing of good cause.
3
LR 26-4; Branch Banking & Tr. Co. v. D.M.S.I., LLC, 871 F.3d 751, 764 (9th Cir. 2017). "The good
4
cause inquiry focuses primarily on the [parties'] diligence." Derosa v. Blood Sys., Inc., No. 2:13-CV-
5
0137-JCM-NJK, 2013 WL 3975764, at *1 (D. Nev. Aug. 1, 2013) (citation omitted). If, despite the
6
parties' diligence, discovery cannot reasonably be completed within the deadlines, good cause to
7
extend discovery exists. Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). Where
8
an extension is requested less than twenty-one (21) days before expiration of a deadline, a showing
9
of excusable neglect must be made. LR 26-4; Derosa, 2013 WL 3975764, at *1. "[W]hether neglect
10
is excusable is an equitable [question] that depends on at least four factors: (1) the danger of prejudice
11
PISANELLI BICE PLLC
400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101
1
to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the
12
reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith." Bateman v. U.S. Postal Serv.,
13
231 F.3d 1220, 1223–24 (9th Cir. 2000); Derosa, 2013 WL 3975764, at *1 (applying Rule 60(b)(1)'s
14
definition of excusable neglect to LR 26-4).
GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO EXTEND TIME TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY.
15
The parties have been diligent in pursuing discovery. As stated above, a stay order prohibited
16
the parties from doing all but producing initial disclosures and engaging in jurisdictional discovery.
17
Since the stay was lifted and the previous scheduling order was entered, the parties have agreed to
18
the form of production for ESI, refined specific search terms in furtherance of ESI production, served
19
thousands of pages of documents, propounded to and responded to written discovery, engaged in
20
meet and confers regarding certain discovery disputes, engaged in motion practice regarding
21
discovery disputes, and served deposition notices. Additionally, the parties agreed to a mediation in
22
October 2018 to attempt resolve this action as well as related action. After the mediation was
23
unsuccessful, the parties are reengaging in discovery. Despite the diligence of all parties, the parties
24
have determined that more time than originally anticipated is necessary to complete fact discovery.
25
Indeed, despite the parties' diligence, discovery cannot reasonably be completed within the
26
deadlines, and good cause to extend discovery deadlines exists.
27
28
8
1
Any neglect assigned to the parties is excusable. First, there is no danger of prejudice. Both
2
parties agree that it is in their best interests to extend discovery deadlines. Second, the length of the
3
delay will not substantively impact the proceedings as the parties have been and continue to actively
4
conduct discovery. Third, the parties' delay in submitting the stipulation is excusable as they have
5
continued to actively engage in discovery. Finally, this proposed Stipulation and Order to extend
6
deadlines for discovery is made in good faith, with good cause, and not for purposes of unduly
7
delaying discovery or trial. Therefore, the parties respectfully request that this Court grant the
8
requested discovery extension.
9
DATED this 18th day of March, 2019.
DATED this 18th day of March, 2019.
PISANELLI BICE PLLC
MCNUTT LAW FIRM, P.C.
10
PISANELLI BICE PLLC
400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101
11
12
13
14
15
16
By: /s/ M. Magali Mercera
By: /s/ Dan McNutt
James J. Pisanelli, Esq., Bar No. 4027
Dan McNutt, Esq., Bar No. 7815
Debra L. Spinelli, Esq., Bar No. 9695
Matthew Wolf, Esq., Bar No. 10801
M. Magali Mercera, Esq., Bar No. 11742
625 S. 8th Street
Brittnie T. Watkins, Esq., Bar No. 13612
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
400 South 7th Street, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
CERTILMAN BALIN ADLER & HYMAN, LLP
Attorneys for Paris Las Vegas Operating
Company, LLC
17
18
19
Attorneys for TPOV Enterprises 16, LLC,
TPOV Enterprises, LLC and Rowen Seibel
20
21
22
23
24
25
By: /s/ Joshua Feldman
Paul Sweeney, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice)
Joshua Feldman, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice)
Nicole Milone, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice)
90 Merrick Avenue, 9th Floor
East Meadow, New York 11554
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3-19-2019
DATED: ___________________________
26
27
28
9
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?