Bank of America, N.A. v. Somerset Park Homeowners Association et al

Filing 11

ORDER. The Court hereby SETS this matter for a case-management conference for 10:00 a.m. on 8/18/2017, in Courtroom 3B. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 7/25/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9
10

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,

11

Plaintiff(s),

12

vs.

13

SOMERSET PARK HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, et al.,

14
Defendant(s).
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:17-cv-01625-RFB-NJK
ORDER

16

This is one of hundreds of cases arising out of HOA foreclosures. Plaintiff initiated this case on

17

June 9, 2017. Docket No. 1. The parties now indicate that a discovery period of 50% beyond the

18

presumptively reasonable period should be permitted. Compare Local Rule 26-1 with Docket No. 1 at

19

2. This request appears to be premised on two primary concerns: (1) that the litigation demands on

20

counsel will be extensive given the volume of cases and (2) that Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses will have

21

limited availability given the volume of cases. Docket No. 1 at 2. The parties have failed to explain,

22

however, (1) why they have made the decision to litigate hundreds of cases without obtaining the

23

number of attorneys needed to do so and (2) why they have made the decision to litigate hundreds of

24

cases without ensuring deponents are reasonably available.1

25
26
27
28

1

The Court reminds the parties that a Rule 30(b)(6) deponent need not have personal knowledge of
the underlying facts. See, e.g., Great American Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Vegas Const. Co., 251 F.R.D. 534, 538
(D. Nev. 2008).

1
2

The parties have also failed to explain whether they have considered various means of
streamlining proceedings, including using:

3

•

the short-trial program;

4

•

arbitration;2

5

•

consolidated depositions;

6

•

tolling agreements; and/or

7

•

bellwether trials.

8

In short, it appears to the Court that the parties have chosen to undertake mass litigation without

9

the proper preparations for doing so, a problem not properly resolved by simply requesting more time

10

to complete discovery.3

11
12

The Court hereby SETS this matter for a case-management conference for 10:00 a.m. on August
18, 2017, in Courtroom 3B.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

DATED: July 25, 2017

15

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

By failing to certify that the short trial program and arbitration were considered by the parties, the
discovery plan does not comply with the local rules. See Local Rules 26-1(b)(7)-(8).
3

Indeed, given the volume of cases at issue, the parties have failed to explain how they have any
confidence that they will be able to meet the discovery cutoff proposed, even given the additional time
requested. Absent significant assurances that this case will be properly staffed to ensure any extended
deadlines are met (both with respect to attorneys and potential Rule 30(b)(6) deponents), the Court is not
inclined to allow an extended discovery period only for additional extensions to be sought later based on the
same reason that there is a high volume of cases.
2