Conway v. National General Insurance Co.

Filing 21

ORDER Granting 20 Stipulation re 18 Motion for Protective Order. ( Responses due by 7/19/2017.) See Order for further deadlines. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 6/26/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

Case 2:17-cv-00748-JCM-GWF Document 20 Filed 06/23/17 Page 1 of 4

6

THOMAS E. WINNER
Nevada Bar No. 5168
MATTHEW J. DOUGLAS
Nevada Bar No. 11371
ATKIN WINNER & SHERROD
1117 South Rancho Drive
Las Vegas, Nevada 89102
Phone [phone]
Facsimile [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

7

Attorneys for Defendant

1
2
3
4
5

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10

ROBERT CONWAY,

CASE NO.: 2:17-cv-00748- JCM-GWF

Plaintiff,

11
12

vs.

13

NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, duly authorized to conduct
business in the State of Nevada; DOES I
through X, and ROE CORPORATIONS I
through X, inclusive,

14
15

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO
EXTEND DEFENDANT’S TIME TO
RESPOND TO WRITTEN DISCOVERY
AND PLAINTIFF’S DEADLINE TO FILE
AN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
(DOC #18)
(First Request)

16
Defendant.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Pursuant to LR 7-1, the parties, by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby
stipulate and request that this Court extend the time for Defendant to respond to Plaintiff’s
written discovery by fourteen (14) days and extend Plaintiff’s time to Oppose Defendants
Motion for a Protective Order (Doc. #18, herein) by fourteen days in the above-captioned case
The parties do not believe this will affect the dates as set forth in the current Stipulated Amended
Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. In support of this Stipulation and Request, the parties
state as follows:
1. On January 31, 2017 Plaintiff filed his Complaint in the eight Judicial District Court
of Clark County, NV.
2. Plaintiff served Defendant with Complaint February 15, 2017;

28
Page 1 of 4

Case 2:17-cv-00748-JCM-GWF Document 20 Filed 06/23/17 Page 2 of 4

1

3. Defendant filed its Petition for Removal and Answer on March 15, 2017;

2

4. March 30, 2017 Plaintiff filed its Motion to Remand to State Court which Defendant
opposed;

3

5. On April 26, 2017 the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand;

4

6. On April 28, 2017 the parties held their Initial FRCP 26 Conference and submitted a
proposed Discovery Scheduling Order;

5
6

7. The proposed Discovery Plan was approved by the Court on May 1, 2017;

7
8. On May 25, 2017 Plaintiff served written interrogatories and Requests for Production
on Defendant;

8
9

9. On June 13, 2017 the parties filed a Stipulation to extend the discovery deadlines
which was granted by the Court on June 15th, 2017;

10

10. On June 20th, 2017 Defendant filed its Motion for Protective Order regarding
Depositions of Defendant noticed by Plaintiff;

11
12

11. One June 22nd, 2017 this Court set a briefing schedule and hearing date on said
Motion for Protective Order with the Plaintiff’s Opposition being due by June 28,
2017 and the hearing set for June 29, 2017.

13
14
15

A.

CURRENT SCHEDULE
1. At the current time, Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s written interrogatories and
Requests for Production on Defendant are due June 28th, 2017;

16
17

2. Further, the Opposition of Plaintiff to Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order (Doc.
#18) would be June 28th, 2017 per this Court’s Order, Doc. #19, herein.

18
19
20

B.

REASONS WHY THE CURRENT MATTERS NOTED IN SECTION A CANNOT
BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF THE CURRENT
DEADLINES

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Defendant is diligently answering Plaintiff’s written discovery, but Defendant’s
representative is out until next week and Defendant needs additional time to confer with its client
to complete the discovery.
Additionally, Plaintiff wishes to depose at least 2 individuals from Defendant NGIC both
of whom reside and work out of state. At the current time there is a dispute regarding these
depositions that is the subject of a Motion for Protective Order (Doc#18, herein) which was filed
June 20th, 2017. As the parties are now trying to resolve these issues without need of the Court’s
intervention, the parties seek additional time for the deadline for Plaintiff to file an Opposition to
the Motion to see if they can accomplish such agreement. As such, the parties ask this court to
vacate the currently set hearing date for June 29th, 2017 and allow Plaintiff additional time, up to

28
Page 2 of 4

Case 2:17-cv-00748-JCM-GWF Document 20 Filed 06/23/17 Page 3 of 4

1

and including July 19th, 2017 to Respond to the Motion with hearing date to be reset thereafter.

2

C.

3

PROPOSED PLAN FOR COMPLETING ABOVE ITEMS IN SECTION A
The parties request that the following deadlines be extended as follows:

4

•

Deadline for Defendant to Answer Plaintiff’s interrogatories and Request for

5
Production:

6
•

7

10
11
12
13
14
15

Deadline for Plaintiff to file an Opposition to the Motion for
Protective Order:

8
9

July 12, 2017

D.

July 19, 2017

THE CURRENT TRIAL DATE
No Trial date has yet been set.

This Request for an extension of time is not sought for any improper purpose or other
purpose of delay. Rather, it is sought by the parties solely for the purpose of allowing sufficient
time to conduct discovery, seek agreement, and adequately prepare their respective cases for
trial.
This is the first request for extension of time in regards to these matters. The parties
respectfully submit that the reasons set forth above constitute compelling reasons for the short
extension.

16

19

WHEREFORE, the parties respectfully request that this Court extend the discovery
period for Defendant to Answer written discovery up to and including July 12, 2017 and extend
the deadline for Plaintiff to file an Opposition to the Motion for Protective Order (Doc#18,
herein), up to and including July 19, 2017 and for the hearing on the Motion for Protective Order
to be re-set to a date thereafter.

20

DATED this _23rd __day of June, 2017

21

ATKIN WINNER & SHERROD

LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM R. BRENSKE

/s/ MATTHEW J. DOUGLAS__________
Thomas E. Winner, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 5168
Matthew J. Douglas, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 11371
1117 South Rancho Drive
Las Vegas, Nevada 89102
Attorneys for Defendant NGIC

/s/ KIMBALL JONES______
Ryan M. Anderson, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 11040
Kimball Jones, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 12982
716 S. Jones Blvd.
Las Vegas, Nevada 89107
Attorneys for Plaintiff Conway

17
18

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 3 of 4

Case 2:17-cv-00748-JCM-GWF Document 20 Filed 06/23/17 Page 4 of 4

1
///
2
DATED this 26thday of _______, 2016.
___
June
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5
GEORGE W. FOLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7

Conway v NGIC; CASE

NO.: 2:17-cv-00748- JCM-GWF

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 4 of 4