Sandoval v. Albertsons, LLC
Filing
25
ORDER Granting 22 Stipulation to Extend Discovery Deadlines (Third Request). Discovery due by 4/16/2018. Motions due by 5/15/2018. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 6/18/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 1/8/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)
Case 2:17-cv-00959-APG-PAL Document 22 Filed 12/20/17 Page 1 of 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
SAO
Alex J. De Castroverde
Nevada Bar No. 6950
Orlando De Castroverde
Nevada Bar No. 7320
De CASTROVERDE LAW GROUP
1149 South Maryland Parkway
Las Vegas, Nevada 89104
Tel. 702.383.0606
Fax:702.383.8741
Email: Alex@decastroverdelaw.com
Email: Orlando@decastroverdelaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
11
12
SILVIA SANDOVAL,
CASE NO.: 2:17-cv-00959-APG-PAL
13
Plaintiff,
14
v.
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO
EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES
15
ALBERTSONS, LLC d/b/a ALBERTSONS;
DOES I-X, inclusive, and ROE
CORPORATIONS I-X, inclusive,
16
17
[THIRD REQUEST]
Defendants.
18
19
20
The undersigned, on behalf of Plaintiff, SILVIA SANDOVAL, and ALBERTSONS,
LLC d/b/a ALBERTSONS, hereby stipulate to extend the remaining deadlines in the
21
22
current scheduling order and discovery plan in this matter for a period of forty-five (45)
23
days for the reasons explained herein, and under Local Rule 6-1(b).
24
///
25
26
///
///
27
28
Page 1 of 9
Case 2:17-cv-00959-APG-PAL Document 22 Filed 12/20/17 Page 2 of 9
I.
1
DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO DATE
2
3
4
1.
The Parties have conducted an FRCP 26(f) conference and have
served their respective FRCP 26(a) disclosures;
5
2.
6
7
Admissions, and Requests for Production, and Plaintiff has served responses thereto;
3.
8
9
10
Defendant has served on Plaintiff Interrogatories, Requests for
Plaintiff has served on Defendant Requests for Admission,
Interrogatories, and Requests for Production, and Defendant has served responses
thereto;
11
4.
12
13
and Plaintiff has served responses thereto;
14
15
Defendant has served on Plaintiff Second Request for Production,
5.
Plaintiff has served on Defendant Second Requests for Admission,
Second Interrogatories, and Defendant has served responses thereto;
16
6.
The deposition of Plaintiff;
7.
The deposition of Evelin Espinoza;
19
8.
The deposition of Hector Garcia;
20
9.
The deposition of Veronica Prieto;
10.
The deposition of Juan Espinoza; and
11.
The deposition of Alex Pasaphong.
17
18
21
22
23
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
28
Page 2 of 9
Case 2:17-cv-00959-APG-PAL Document 22 Filed 12/20/17 Page 3 of 9
1
2
II.
3
DISCOVERY TO BE COMPLETED
4
1.
Additional written discovery;
2.
Depositions of Kristi Fridley; and
3.
Deposition of Defendant’s 30(b)(6) witness.
5
6
7
8
III.
9
REASON THAT DISCOVERY HAS NOT YET BEEN COMPLETED
10
This is the third stipulation for extension of time. The enlargement of time
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
periods, including discovery deadlines, is governed by F.R.C.P. 6(b), which states:
When by these rules or by a notice given thereunder or by order of court
an act is required or allowed to be done at or within a specified time, the
court for cause shown may at any time in its discretion (1) with or without
motion or notice order the period enlarged if request therefor is made
before the expiration of the period originally prescribed or as extended by
a previous order, or (2) upon motion made after the expiration of the
specified period permit the act to be done where the failure to act was the
result of excusable neglect; but it may not extend the time for taking any
action under Rules 50(b) and (c)(2), 52(b), 59(b), (d) and (e), 60(b), and
74(a), except to the extent and under the conditions stated in them.
19
The Local Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada
20
21
include additional provisions relating to the extension or reopening of discovery.
22
Specifically, Local Rule 6-1 governs requests for continuances and extensions in
23
general, stating:
24
25
26
27
28
(a) Every motion requesting a continuance, extension of time,
or order shortening time shall be Filed by the clerk and processed as an
expedited matter. Ex parte motions and stipulations shall be governed by
LR 6-2.
(b) Every motion or stipulation to extend time shall inform the court of any
previous extensions granted and state the reasons for the extension
requested A request made after the expiration of the specified period shall
Page 3 of 9
Case 2:17-cv-00959-APG-PAL Document 22 Filed 12/20/17 Page 4 of 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
not be granted unless the moving party, attorney, or other person
demonstrates that the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect.
Immediately below the title of such motion or stipulation there shall also be
included a statement indicating whether it is the first, second, third, etc.,
requested extension, i.e.:
STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE MOTIONS (First
Request)
(c) The court may set aside any extension obtained in contravention of this
rule.
(d) A stipulation or motion seeking to extend the time to file an opposition
or final reply to a motion, or to extend the time fixed for hearing a motion,
must state in its opening paragraph the filing date of the motion.
Local Rule 26-4 specifically refers to the extension of scheduled deadlines,
stating:
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Applications
to extend any
date
set
by
the discovery plan,
scheduling order, or other order must, in addition to satisfying the
requirements of LR 6-1, be supported by a showing of good cause for the
extension. All motions or stipulations to extend discovery shall be received
by the court within twenty (20) days before the discovery cut-off date or
any extension thereof.
Any motion or stipulation to extend or to reopen discovery shall include:
(a) A statement specifying the discovery completed;
(b) A specific description of the discovery that remains to be completed;
(c) The reasons why discovery remaining was not completed within the
time limits set by the discovery plan; and
(d) A proposed schedule for completing all remaining discovery.
The Parties’ failure to timely request an extension of the discovery deadline
21
22
under Local Rule 26-4 results from excusable neglect. Before 1993, a conflict existed
23
between the Courts of Appeals as to the meaning of excusable neglect. In 1993,
24
however, the United States Supreme Court resolved this conflict with its decision
25
in Pioneer Investment Services v. Brunswick Associates, Ltd., 507 U.S 380 (1993). By
26
empowering the courts to accept late filings where failing to act resulted from
27
28
excusable neglect, Congress plainly contemplated that the courts would be permitted,
Page 4 of 9
Case 2:17-cv-00959-APG-PAL Document 22 Filed 12/20/17 Page 5 of 9
1
where appropriate, to accept late filings caused by inadvertence, mistake, or
2
carelessness, and by intervening circumstances beyond the party's control. Id. at 388.
3
The Parties’ failure to request an extension of discovery twenty (20) days before
4
the discovery deadline
under
LR
26-4
constitutes excusable neglect.
5
6
7
The discovery deadline should be extended.
Pioneer's liberal
definition
of excusable neglect is
applicable
beyond
the
8
bankruptcy context where it arose. Weinstock v. Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton, 16
9
F.3d 501, 503 (2d Cir. 1994). Although the decision in Pioneer arose out of the context
10
of a Bankruptcy Rule 9006 in a bankruptcy proceeding, the term excusable neglect is
11
12
used throughout the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in several places. For example,
13
under Rule 6(b), where the specified period for performing an act has elapsed, a district
14
court may enlarge the period and permit the tardy act where the omission results from
15
excusable neglect. Pioneer. 507 U.S. at 391. There is no indication that anything other
16
than the commonly accepted meaning of the phrase was intended by its drafters. Id. Not
17
18
19
20
21
surprisingly, in applying Rule 6(b), the Courts of
Appeals have recognized
that excusable neglect may extend to inadvertent delays. Id. at 391-392.
Determining whether a party's neglect of a deadline is excusable requires the
review of several factors. Because Congress has provided no other guideposts for
22
23
determining what sorts of neglect will be excusable, the determination is equitable,
24
taking account of all relevant circumstances surrounding the party's omission. Id. at 395.
25
The factors include: (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party, (2) the length of
26
the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, (3) the reason for the delay,
27
including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and (4) whether
28
Page 5 of 9
Case 2:17-cv-00959-APG-PAL Document 22 Filed 12/20/17 Page 6 of 9
1
the movant acted in good faith. Id. In Committee for Idaho's High Desert, Inc. v. Yost, 92
2
F.3d 814 (9th Cir. 1996), the Ninth Circuit held that the Supreme Court's analysis
3
of excusable neglect in Pioneer applies to Rule 6(b). Similarly, the Ninth Circuit adopted
4
the Pioneer test for Rule 60(b)(1) cases in Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d
5
6
379, 381 (9th Cir. 1997).
7
In Briones, 116 F.3d at 381, the Ninth Circuit noted that Pioneer changed its law
8
on excusable neglect. Bateman v. U.S. Postal Service, 231 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2000).
9
Before Pioneer, the Ninth Circuit had held that ignorance of court rules did not
10
constitute excusable neglect and had applied a per se rule against granting relief when
11
12
a party failed to comply with a deadline. Id. (citing Briones.) After Pioneer, however, the
13
Ninth Circuit recognized that the term excusable neglect covers cases of negligence,
14
carelessness, and inadvertent mistake. Id.
15
16
Here, the Parties have admittedly failed to request the subject extension earlier
than twenty (20) days before the disclosure deadlines in the Stipulated Discovery Plan.
17
18
On November 15, 2017 and November 27, 2017, Plaintiff’s office contacted Defense
19
counsel to arrange a date to conduct the depositions of Mike Kinne, Kristi Findley, and
20
Defendant’s 30(b)(6) witness. However, Plaintiff’s counsel never received deposition
21
availability of the foregoing witnesses.
Therefore, Plaintiff unilaterally noticed the
22
23
depositions of Defendant’s 30(b)(6) witness for December 12, 2017. In addition, Plaintiff
24
unilaterally noticed the depositions of Mike Kinne and Kristi Fridley for December 15,
25
2017. On November 28, 2017, Plaintiff’s counsel spoke with Defense counsel
26
telephonically and Defense counsel was agreeable to the dates that Plaintiff unilaterally
27
set for the depositions of Mike Kinne, Kristi Findley, and Defendant’s 30(b)(6) witness.
28
Page 6 of 9
Case 2:17-cv-00959-APG-PAL Document 22 Filed 12/20/17 Page 7 of 9
1
On December 6, 2017, Plaintiff’s counsel’s office wrote Defense counsel to
2
confirm that Mike Kinne, Kristi Findley, and Defendant’s 30(b)(6) witness would be able
3
to attend the deposition scheduled for December 15, 2017. Defense counsel responded
4
on December 7, 2017, that he could not confirm whether the depositions would be able
5
6
to go forward since the adjuster assigned to this case recently resigned.
7
On December 11, 2017, Defense counsel noted that a new adjuster had still not
8
been reassigned to the case, and as a result, Defendant’s 30(b)(6) witness’ deposition
9
and Kristi Fridley’s deposition would not be able to go forward. This is because
10
ALBERTSONS, LLC d/b/a ALBERTSONS had yet to provide the dates of availability.
11
12
On December 12, 2017, Plaintiff took a non-appearance for Defendant’s 30(b)(6)
13
witness.
14
deposition.
15
On December 15, 2017, Plaintiff took a non-appearnce for Kristi Fridley’s
16
1. No Party Will Be Prejudiced in Any Manner By an Extension of
the Discovery Period.
17
No party will be prejudiced by an extension of the discovery deadline. Notably,
18
both Parties agree that an extension would be beneficial. An extension will allow each
19
party to further prepare its respective case for trial. Forcing the Parties to proceed to
20
21
trial without the necessary discovery will affect every aspect of the trial. It will manifestly
22
prejudice both sides ability to prepare and present their respective cases. See Martel v.
23
County of Los Angeles, 34 F.3d 731, 735 (9th Cir. 1994).
24
25
2. The Parties’ Delay Was Not Long and Will Not Adversely Impact These
Proceedings.
26
The extension or reopening of discovery in this matter will not result in prejudice
27
to any party. Likewise, such an extension will not hurt the proceedings in this Court. The
28
Page 7 of 9
Case 2:17-cv-00959-APG-PAL Document 22 Filed 12/20/17 Page 8 of 9
1
2
Parties have acted promptly to request an extension. Additional discovery should be
allowed.
3
3. The Movant Acted in Good Faith at All Times.
4
5
Here, both Parties are agreeable to the extension and have acted in good faith to
request the same. The Parties have no intent, nor reason, to delay the resolution. Both
6
7
Parties eagerly look forward to attempting to resolve this matter.
8
So, a review of the preceding factors reveals that—although the Parties’ failure to
9
request an extension within 20 days of the initial expert disclosure deadline may
10
constitute neglect—it is excusable.
11
4. There are Strong Compelling Circumstances to Grant an Extension
12
Here, Plaintiff’s Counsel initially contacted Defense Counsel on November 15,
13
14
2017, seeking deposition availability of their disclosed witnesses. It has been over one
15
month now and Defense counsel has not been provided deposition dates from his
16
carrier due to the assigned adjuster on the case resigning. To this date, Defense
17
18
19
counsel still has not been provided deposition availability for Kristi Fridley and their
30(b)(6) witness.
20
Further, Defendant’s 30(b)(6) witness is pivotal to this case. Specifically, Plaintiff
21
has intentions of filing a motion for spoliation of evidence on several issues including: 1)
22
lost video; 2) lost sweep logs; and 3) a lost incident report. To bind the company and to
23
24
prove that Defendant’s conduct violated company policy, it is imperative that Plaintiff’s
25
counsel take the deposition of Defendant’s 30(b)(6) witness.
26
///
27
///
28
///
Page 8 of 9
Case 2:17-cv-00959-APG-PAL Document 22 Filed 12/20/17 Page 9 of 9
V.
1
2
3
PROPOSED NEW DISCOVERY DEADLINES
Discovery Cut-off
April 16, 2018
Expert Disclosures
February 16, 2018
Rebuttal Expert Witness Disclosures
March 19, 2018
7
Amend Pleadings
February 16, 2018
8
Joint Pre-Trial Order
June 18, 2018
9
Interim Status Report
February 16, 2018
Dispositive Motions
May 15, 2018
4
5
6
10
11
12
13
DATED this 20th day of December, 2017.
DATED this 20th day of December 2017.
DE CASTROVERDE LAW GROUP
MORAN BRANDON BENDAVID
MORAN
By: /s/ David Menocal___________
David Menocal
Nevada Bar No. 13191
1149 S. Maryland Pkwy.
Las Vegas, Nevada 89104
Attorney for Plaintiff
By: /s/ Kris Klingensmith_________
Kris D. Klingensmith
Nevada Bar No. 13904
630 S. Fourth Street
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Attorney for Defendant
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED:
_________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
January 8, 2018
DATED: ________________
24
25
26
27
28
Page 9 of 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?