T.R.P. Company, Inc. v. Similasan AG et al

Filing 110

ORDER granting 109 Stipulation; Expert Discovery due 7/24/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 6/25/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

Download PDF
1 DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC MICHAEL N. FEDER, Nevada Bar No. 7332 2 Email: mfeder@dickinson-wright.com 3 8363 West Sunset Road, Suite 200 Las Vegas, Nevada 89113-2210 4 Tel: (702) 550-4400 5 Fax: (844) 670-6009 6 DANIEL S. SILVERMAN (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) VENABLE LLP 7 Email: dssilverman@venable.com 8 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, California 90067 9 Tel: (310) 229-0373 10 Fax: (310) 229-9901 11 MEAGHAN H. KENT (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) VENABLE LLP 12 Email: MHKent@venable.com 13 600 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20001 14 Tel: (202) 344-4000 Fax: (202) 344-8300 15 16 Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant T.R.P. Company, Inc. 17 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 19 20 Plaintiff, 21 22 23 24 25 Case No.: 2:17-cv-02197-JCM-CWH T.R.P. COMPANY, INC., STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND EXPERT DISCOVERY CUT-OFF (Second Request) vs. SIMILASAN AG AND SIMILASAN CORPORATION, Defendants. 26 27 COME NOW Plaintiff T.R.P. Company, Inc. (“TRP”) and Defendants Similasan AG and 28 Similasan Corporation (collectively, “Similasan”), by and through their counsel of record, hereby 1 1 stipulate and agree to extend the final expert discovery deadline of the Joint Discovery Plan on a 2 limited basis; namely, to accommodate expert depositions that, due to scheduling conflicts, could 3 4 5 not be accommodated prior to the July 1 deadline. This is the second request to extend this discovery deadline. The Parties have submitted all reports and have been diligently working to schedule 6 7 expert depositions since May 24. Due to expert and attorney schedules, the Parties were unable 8 to find deposition dates for two of the expert witnesses, Jeffrey Stec for Similasan and David 9 Stewart for TRP, prior to July 1. Additionally, Similasan took the deposition of Russell Mangum 10 11 on June 18, 2019, but left the deposition open. TRP objects to a continued deposition of Dr. Mangum. Both parties reserve all rights, but should an additional deposition of Dr. Mangum be 12 13 permitted, it would need to be scheduled after the current July 1 cutoff. The Parties acknowledge that this request is being made fewer than 21 days from the 14 15 deadline. However, immediately upon learning of the scheduling conflicts, the Parties promptly 16 agreed on the extended deadlines herein and sought this brief extension with the Court. The 17 Parties have otherwise scheduled and completed expert discovery, but they will be unable to 18 19 20 21 complete the final two depositions or meet and confer regarding a second deposition of Dr. Mangum and schedule a continued deposition, if permitted, within the current deadlines. The proposed deadline, preceded by the current deadline (Dkt. 98), appears below. The proposed date 22 is: 23 1. Expert Discovery Cut-Off: July 1, 2019 to be July 24, 2019. 24 The Parties do not request a further extension of time for dispositive motions or any other 25 subsequent deadlines. 26 27 28 Discovery Completed – The Parties have completed all fact discovery and expert reports. The Parties have produced a substantial number of documents and conducted several 2 1 depositions. Each party designated opening experts and rebuttal experts. An expert deposition 2 took place on June 14 for Hal Poret, and June 18 for Russell Mangum. 3 4 5 6 Discovery To Be Completed – The expert depositions of Jeffery Stec and David Stewart. The parties shall meet and confer about a potential continued deposition of Russell Mangum. Pending Motions – There are no motions currently pending before the Court. Dispositive 7 motions will be submitted on July 15. 8 The Parties represent that this Stipulation is sought in good faith and for good cause. The 9 Parties have been diligently engaged in fact and expert discovery, and do not seek to extend the 10 11 overall timeline of the case. The Parties’ experts have diligently completed their reports within the schedule and now seek only to complete depositions outside of the deadline due to logistical 12 13 14 challenges. The Parties hereby jointly respectfully request that the aforementioned deadline be 15 extended accordingly. 16 Dated: June 20, 2019 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC CROWELL & MORING LLP /s/ Michael N. Feder MICHAEL N. FEDER (NV Bar No. 7332) Email: mfeder@dickinson-wright.com 8363 West Sunset Road, Suite 200 Las Vegas, Nevada 89113-2210 /s/ Raija Horstman Michelle Gillette (Pro Hac Vice) 3 Embarcadero Center, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 986-2800 Facsimile: (415) 986-2827 Email: mgillette@crowell.com VENABLE LLP Daniel S. Silverman (Pro Hac Vice) 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, California 90067 Tel: (310) 229-0373 Fax: (310) 229-9901 Email: dssilverman@venable.com Valerie Goo (Pro Hac Vice) Raija Horstman (Pro Hac Vice) 515 S. Flower Street, 40th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-5505 Facsimile: (213) 622-2690 Email: vgoo@crowell.com Email: rhorstman@crowell.com 27 28 3 1 2 3 4 5 VENABLE LLP Meaghan H. Kent (Pro Hac Vice) 600 Massachusetts Avenue., NW Washington, D.C. 20001 Tel: (202) 344-4000 Fax: (202) 344-8300 Email: mhkent@venable.com Attorneys for Plaintiff T.R.P. Company, Inc. BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP Michael D. Rounds (NV Bar No. 4734) Ryan Cudnik (NV Bar No. 12948) 5371 Kietzke Lane Reno, NV 89511 Telephone: (775) 324-4100 Facsimile: (775) 333-8171 Email: mrounds@bhfs.com rcudnik@bhfs.com 6 7 8 Emily Ellis (NV Bar No. 11956) 100 North City Parkway Las Vegas, Nevada 89106-4614 Telephone: (702) 382-2101 Facsimile: (702) 382-8135 Email: eellis@bhfs.com 9 10 11 12 Counsel for Defendants SIMILASAN CORPORATION and SIMILASAN AG 13 14 15 16 17 ORDER IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 20 21 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DATE: 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 June 25, 2019

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?