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)
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?