Ruiz et al v. Stewart Title Company et al
Filing
16
ORDER granting 15 Stipulation re Discovery Deadlines. Discovery due by 6/18/2018. Motions due by 7/18/2018. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 8/29/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 12/28/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
Case 2:17-cv-00944-RFB-CWH Document 15 Filed 12/27/17 Page 1 of 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
Douglas D. Gerrard, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 4613
dgerrard@gerrard-cox.com
John M. Langeveld, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 11628
jlangeveld@gerrard-cox.com
GERRARD COX & LARSEN
2450 St. Rose Parkway, Suite #200
Henderson, NV 89074
Telephone: (702) 796-4000
Facsimile: (702) 796-4848
Attorneys for Defendant STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
Case No.
2:17-cv-00944-RFB-CWH
Plaintiffs,
12
vs.
13
STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, a
Texas corporation; STEWART TITLE COMPANY,
a Texas Corporation; DOE DEFENDANTS 1
through 10; and ROE ENTITIES 1 through 10.
2450 St. Rose Parkway, Suite 200
Henderson, Nevada 89074
(702) 796-4000
GERRARD, COX & LARSEN
11
ROBERT NUNEZ RUIZ, an Individual; and
TERESA LYNN RUIZ, an Individual,
14
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES
[SECOND REQUEST]
19
Pursuant to Local Rules IA 6-1 and 26-4, and all applicable authority, Plaintiffs ROBERT
20
NUNEZ RUIZ and TERESA LYNN RUIZ (collectively, "RUIZ"), by and through their attorneys,
21
Frizell Law Firm, PLLC, and Defendant STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY ("STGC"),
22
by and through its attorneys, Gerrard Cox Larsen, hereby stipulate and agree, subject to approval
23
by the Court, to amend the current discovery plan and scheduling order, as set forth in the Order
24
Granting First Stipulation for Extension of Time, dated October 24, 2017 [ECF No. 14], as further
25
set forth herein:
26
27
28
Case 2:17-cv-00944-RFB-CWH Document 15 Filed 12/27/17 Page 2 of 6
1
I.
STATEMENT PURSUANT TO LR 26-4:
2
A.
Discovery Completed To Date.
3
(i).
4
RUIZ served their Initial Disclosures on October 14, 2017.
5
STGC served its Initial Disclosures on September 13, 2017.
6
RUIZ served its First Set of Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for
7
Admission to STGC on October 19, 2017.
8
9
10
Initial Discovery:
The Parties put a great deal of time an effort into their Initial and Supplemental
Disclosures. The Parties have already identified about 10-pages' worth of potential witnesses, and
collectively have produced over 900 pages' worth of documents.
(ii).
12
On October 24, 2017, this Court entered its Order Granting First Stipulation for Extension
2450 St. Rose Parkway, Suite 200
Henderson, Nevada 89074
(702) 796-4000
GERRARD, COX & LARSEN
11
Discovery Completed After The Court’s First, 90-day Discovery Extension.
13
of Time, whereby the Court granted the Parties’ stipulation to extend the discovery period by 90
14
days. [ECF No. 14]. Since that date, the Parties have been diligently engaged in discovery, and
15
have completed the following additional discovery:
16
STGC served its First Supplemental Disclosures on December 11, 2017.
17
STGC served RUIZ with responses to RUIZ’s written discovery requests on December 11,
18
2017.
19
STGC served its Second Supplemental Disclosures on December 22, 2017.
20
STGC served its First Set of Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for
21
Admission to RUIZ on December 22, 2017.
22
23
No other discovery has been commenced or completed in this case.
B.
Discovery That Remains to Be Completed.
24
1.
RUIZ responding to STGC’s written discovery requests.
25
2.
The depositions of STGC and ROBERT RUIZ and TERESA RUIZ.
26
3.
The depositions of the witnesses identified by the parties (most of which are
expected to take place in Hawaii).
27
28
4.
Disclosures of expert witnesses and reports.
2
Case 2:17-cv-00944-RFB-CWH Document 15 Filed 12/27/17 Page 3 of 6
1
5.
Depositions of expert witnesses.
2
6.
Subpoenas and relevant documents and things held by third parties (most of which
3
4
are located in Hawaii).
C.
Reasons Why The Discovery Cannot be Completed Per the Current Discovery
Scheduling Order.
5
The current discovery cut-off is not until March 30, 2018. Therefore, technically the
6
parties still have time to conduct discovery, even under the old cut-off date. However, the
7
discovery identified in Section C, above, has not been completed because the parties have not had
8
enough time to do so. This is true in part, because, as the Court is aware, at the outset of this case,
9
the parties were engaged in negotiations with respect to the dismissal of claims against a former
10
Defendant, Stewart Title Company. That former Defendant was represented by the same counsel
11
2450 St. Rose Parkway, Suite 200
Henderson, Nevada 89074
(702) 796-4000
GERRARD, COX & LARSEN
representing Stewart Title Guaranty Company. After some due diligence, the parties were able to
12
reach an agreement to dismiss the former Defendant. Related thereto, the parties entered into a
13
tolling agreement dated September 14, 2017, and Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the former
14
Defendant on October 19, 2017 [ECF No. 12]. In an attempt to keep costs down, at the outset of
15
the case, the Parties had been focusing on these negotiations as opposed to conducting what may
16
have turned out to be unnecessary discovery.
17
In addition, the Parties require additional time to complete the discovery identified in
18
Section C because of the unique circumstances of this case. Many of the facts and events
19
surrounding this dispute occurred outside of Nevada, in rural Hawaii (Puakenikeni, Pahoa,
20
Hawaii). Because the events occurred in Hawaii, the parties need additional time to retain expert
21
witnesses who are either located in Hawaii, or who may be available to travel to Hawaii, to
22
investigate the facts and circumstances surrounding the dispute in this case. Both parties have
23
already made efforts to retain an expert witness in this case, and those efforts are ongoing. The
24
Parties expect to retain and disclose their own respective expert witnesses shortly.
25
The parties also need additional time to subpoena relevant documents and things held by
26
third parties located in Hawaii. Previous efforts by the Parties in this case have focused on
27
identifying those third parties which might be in possession of relevant information. The Parties
28
3
Case 2:17-cv-00944-RFB-CWH Document 15 Filed 12/27/17 Page 4 of 6
1
expect to serve discovery and deposition subpoenas on various third parties within the next couple
2
of weeks.
3
Further, and probably most notably, the parties need additional time to notice and
4
coordinate together with regard to scheduling depositions of various witnesses, which will take
5
place in Hawaii. Because travel to Hawaii will be expensive, the Parties expect to coordinate
6
together and have these depositions occur on successive days. This will require coordinating dates
7
and availability with every witness that the parties will be deposing.
8
9
Accordingly, good cause exists to extend the discovery deadlines. This stipulation for an
extension of the deadlines is not made for purposes of delay, but rather to permit the parties an
opportunity to complete discovery to support their claims and defenses.
11
D.
Proposed Schedule For Completing All Remaining Discovery.
12
2450 St. Rose Parkway, Suite 200
Henderson, Nevada 89074
(702) 796-4000
GERRARD, COX & LARSEN
10
13
So that the foregoing discovery may be completed before the discovery deadlines, the
parties propose a 90-day extension of the Discovery Deadlines as follows:
14
Description of Deadline
Old Date
New Date
15
Discovery Cut-Off
3/20/2018
06/18/2018
16
Initial Expert Disclosures
1/19/2018
04/19/2018
17
Interim Status Report
1/19/2018
04/19/2018
18
Rebuttal Expert Disclosures
2/19/2018
05/21/2018
19
Dispositive Motions
4/19/2018
07/18/2018
20
Joint Pre-Trial Order
5/21/2018
08/29/20181
21
Extensions or Modification of the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. LR 26-4
22
governs modifications or extensions of this Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. Any stipulation
23
or motion to extend a deadline set forth in the discovery plan and scheduling order must be made
24
not later than twenty-one (21) days before the subject deadline.
25
26
27
28
1
The Parties request that, in the event the Court's decision on any pending motion to dismiss has
not been made, or if additional dispositive motions are filed, the date for filing the joint pretrial order be
suspended until thirty (30) days after a decision on the dispositive motions. This is consistent with the
terms of the Court's original Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (filed Aug. 8, 2017) [Doc. 9].
4
Case 2:17-cv-00944-RFB-CWH Document 15 Filed 12/27/17 Page 5 of 6
1
As set forth above, the soonest discovery deadline in this case, which the parties seek to
2
modify, is the Initial Expert Disclosures deadline, currently set for January 19, 2018. Thus, the
3
deadline to extend the Initial Expert Disclosures Deadline is currently December 29, 2017.
4
Accordingly, this stipulation is timely filed and complies with LR 26-4, as it is filed prior to
5
December 29, 2017.
6
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
7
DATED this 27th day of December, 2017.
FRIZELL LAW FIRM, PLLC
8
GERRARD COX LARSEN
9
10
12
2450 St. Rose Parkway, Suite 200
Henderson, Nevada 89074
(702) 796-4000
GERRARD, COX & LARSEN
11
13
/s/ R. Duane Frizell, Esq.
R. Duane Frizell, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 9807
400 N. Stephanie St. Suite 265
Henderson, Nevada 89014
Phone: (702) 657-6000
Attorneys for Plaintiffs ROBERT NUNEZ
RUIZ, and TERESA LYNN RUIZ
/s/ John M. Langeveld, Esq.
Douglas D. Gerrard, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 4613
John M. Langeveld, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 11628
2450 St. Rose Parkway, Suite 200
Henderson, NV 89074
Attorneys for Defendant STEWART TITLE
GUARANTY COMPANY
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
///
27
///
28
5
Case 2:17-cv-00944-RFB-CWH Document 15 Filed 12/27/17 Page 6 of 6
1
ORDER
2
Having reviewed the foregoing Stipulation of the Parties, and finding good, just, and
3
4
sufficient cause therefor, it its hereby entered as an Order of the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6
December 28, 2017
DATED:________________________
7
8
_________________________________________
9
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10
CASE NO.: 2:17-cv-00944-RFP-CWH
12
Respectfully submitted by:
13
GERRARD COX LARSEN
14
/s/ John M. Langeveld, Esq.
Douglas D. Gerrard, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 4613
John M. Langeveld, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 11628
2450 St. Rose Parkway, Suite 200
Henderson, NV 89074
Attorneys for Defendant
STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY
2450 St. Rose Parkway, Suite 200
Henderson, Nevada 89074
(702) 796-4000
GERRARD, COX & LARSEN
11
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
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?