Wulfenstein Construction Company, Inc. v. Herback General Engineering, LLC et al

Filing 22

ORDER granting 21 Stipulation; Discovery due by 7/1/2018. Motions due by 7/31/2018. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due no later than 30 days after the deadline for dispositive motions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 12/8/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 MICHAEL M. DELEE, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 11948 DELEE LAW OFFICES, LLC P.O. Box 96, 18 South Powerline Road Amargosa Valley, Nevada 89020 Telephone: (775) 372-1999 E-Mail: michael@deleelaw.com MICHAEL S. KIMMEL, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 09081 HOY CHRISSINGER KIMMEL VALLAS, PC 50 West Liberty Street, Suite 840 Reno, Nevada 89501 Telephone: (775) 786-8000 E-Mail: mkimmel@nevadalaw.com 9 10 Attorneys for Wulfenstein Construction Company, Inc. 11 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 WULFENSTEIN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., AND UNITED STATES FOR THE USE OF WULFENSTEIN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., a Nevada corporation, Plaintiff, vs. HERBACK GENERAL ENGINEERING, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA, a Connecticut corporation; DOES 1 – 10, inclusive, Defendants. 23 24 ) ) ) Case No. 2:17-cv-01182-APG-NJK ) ) ) STIPULATION AND ORDER TO ) EXTEND DISCOVERY ) DEADLINES PENDING THE ) OUTCOME OF MEDIATION ) ) (FIRST REQUEST) ) ) ) ) ) ) This is the first stipulation to extend discovery deadlines. Pursuant to LR IA 6-1 and LR 25 26-4, the parties, by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate and request 26 that this Court extend discovery deadlines in this matter. In support of this Stipulation and 27 Request, the parties state as follows: 28 1 (a) Discoverty Completed to Date: 2 The parties have completed initial disclosures and document exchanges. The parties have 3 also engaged in written discovery, propounding requests for production, interrogatories, and 4 requests for admission, for which responses have been made. The parties are continuing to 5 6 7 8 discuss disputes related to the responses made to this initial round of written discovery and have exchanged meet and confer positions on the items of dispute. The parties believe that any disputes related to the initial round of written discovery can be resolved without court intervention. (b) Discovery that Remains to be Completed: 9 The parties contemplate taking the depositions of the principal employees of each party. 10 11 12 13 The parties also contemplate an additional round of written discovery, should the parties be unable to resolve this dispute at mediation. Once completed, the parties will proceed with obtaining expert witness opinions on the dates and time permitted herein. Some third-party discovery may be required, through subpoenas or depositions. 14 (c) The reasons why discovery will not be completed prior to the existing deadlines. 15 Based on the initial disclosures and exchanges and upon the responses to written 16 discovery, the parties have agreed to (and have scheduled with Robert F Enzenberger, Esq.), a 17 mediation. An extension of the current discovery deadlines will allow the parties to privately 18 mediate the matter as contemplated in the Joint Interim Status Report [Dkt 20] (initial mediation 19 scheduled for December 15, 2017), will preserve the status quo, and will minimize the expense 20 of the parties’ resources and those of the Court until such mediation can be concluded. 21 Mediterranean Enterprises, Inc. v. Ssangyong Corp., 708 F.2d 1458, 1465 (9th Cir. 1983). 22 Additionally, it will prevent the risk of the court needlessly expending its energies to further 23 24 25 26 manage the case when the case may well settle as a result of the parties’ own accord at the upcoming mediation. Sommers v. Cuddy, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12430 (D.Nev. 2013). Discovery should be continued as stipulated between the parties to allow for a full and complete effort to mediate this dispute. Because no trial date has yet been set by the Court in this matter, and because the parties and their attorneys are available for trial in or after November of 2018, as 27 disclosed in the Joint Interim Status Report [Dkt 20], the extension requested is appropriate. 28 2 (d) Proposed Schedule for Completing remaining Discovery. 1 i. 2 The expert disclosure deadline should be extended up to and including April 30, 2018. 3 ii. 4 The rebuttal expert disclosure deadline should be extended up to and including May 30, 2018. 5 iii. 6 The close of discovery deadline should be extended up to and including July 1, 2018. 7 iv. 8 The dispositive motion deadline should be extended up to and including July 31, 2018. 9 v. 10 The parties will file their joint pre-trial order (including FRCP 26(a)(3) disclosures) no later than 30 days after the deadline for dispositive motions. 11 But, if there are dispositive motions pending at that time, the parties shall file 12 the joint pre-trial order 30 days after the Court has decided any pending 13 dispositive motions. 14 For the reasons stated herein, the parties hereby request the Court’s order affirming the 15 stipulated extension of the discovery deadlines to assist the parties in their effort to mediate this 16 matter. 17 DATED: December 7, 2017. DATED: December 7, 2017. 18 DELEE LAW OFFICES, LLC MOORE LAW GROUP, PC /s/ Michael M. DeLee________ Michael M. DeLee, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 11948 Attorney for Plaintiff /s/ John D. Moore______________ John D. Moore, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 8581 Attorney for Defendants 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 ____________________________________ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 December 8, 2017 DATED: _______________________ 28 3

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?