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)

Download PDF
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

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?