Eyetalk365, LLC v. Zmodo Technology Corporation Limited

Filing 178

ORDER granting ECF No. 167 Defendant Zmodo Technology Corporation Limited's Motion to Extend Time to File Response to ECF No. 159 Plaintiff's Motion to Disqualify. (First Request). Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 8/14/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Chad R. Fears (Nevada Bar No.: 6970)
EVANS FEARS & SCHUTTERT LLP
2300 W. Sahara Avenue, Suite 900
Las Vegas, Nevada 89102
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Jonathan K. Waldrop (pro hac vice)
Darcy L. Jones (pro hac vice)
Marcus A. Barber (pro hac vice)
Jack Shaw (pro hac vice)
Heather S. Kim (pro hac vice)
KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP
333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 200
Redwood Shores, California 94065
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant
Zmodo Technology Corporation Limited
Additional counsel on signature page
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

15
16
17

EYETALK365, LLC,

Case No. 3:17-cv-00686-RCJ-PAL

Plaintiff,

18

v.

19

and related case

ZMODO TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
LIMITED,
Defendant.

20
21
22

EYETALK365, LLC,
Plaintiff,

23

v.

24

ZMODO TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
LIMITED,

25
26

Defendant.

Case No. 2:17-cv-02714-RCJ-PAL
DEFENDANT ZMODO TECHNOLOGY
CORPORATION LIMITED’S MOTION
TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO DISQUALIFY
(FIRST REQUEST)

27

1

1

Defendant Zmodo Technology Corporation Limited (“Zmodo”), pursuant to LR IA 6-1,

2

hereby requests a two-day extension to file its Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify filed

3

on July 25, 2018 (ECF No. 67 in Case No. 3:17-cv-00686-RCJ-PAL; ECF No. 159 in Case No.

4

2:17-cv-02714-RCJ-PAL) – moving the deadline for Zmodo’s Response from August 8, 2018 to

5

August 10, 2018. This is Zmodo’s first request for an extension of time to file its Response.

6

Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify raises various allegations against Zmodo’s counsel

7

Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP (“Kasowitz”) regarding purported disqualifying conflict of interest,

8

to which Kasowitz’s attorneys, including the firm’s senior attorneys, require additional time to

9

review thoroughly based on the information known to date, and to respond accordingly. Given

10

the seriousness and implications of Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify, Zmodo would be severely

11

prejudiced if its counsel is not afforded the requested time extension. On the other hand, a short

12

two-day extension does not harm or prejudice Plaintiff and, in fact, Zmodo would agree to a similar

13

time extension for Plaintiff’s Reply brief should Plaintiff need additional time. This short time

14

extension will not impact the hearing on the Motion to Disqualify currently set for August 28,

15

2018.

16

Further, as set forth in the attached Declaration of Jack Shaw, Esq., Zmodo made efforts to

17

secure a time extension for Zmodo’s Response, but Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond to voice

18

messages or emails as of the time of filing the instant motion to extend time.

19

Based on the foregoing, good cause exists to extend the deadline for Zmodo to submit its

20

Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify from August 8, 2018 to August 10, 2018.

21

Dated: August 7, 2018.

22

EVANS FEARS & SCHUTTERT LLP

23

By: /s/ Chad R. Fears
Chad R. Fears (Nevada Bar No.: 6970)
EVANS FEARS & SCHUTTERT LLP
2300 W. Sahara Avenue, #900
Las Vegas, Nevada 89102
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

24
25
26
27

2

1

Jonathan K. Waldrop (pro hac vice)
Darcy L. Jones (pro hac vice)
Marcus A. Barber (pro hac vice)
Jack Shaw (pro hac vice)
Heather S. Kim (pro hac vice)
KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP
333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 200
Redwood Shores, California 94065
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Rodney R. Miller (pro hac vice)
Nicole Holtzapple (pro hac vice)
KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP
Two Midtown Plaza, Suite 1500
1349 W. Peachtree Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

11
12
13
14
15
16

Daniel C. Miller (pro hac vice)
KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP
1399 New York Avenue NW, Suite 201
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

17
18
19
20
21

Attorneys for Defendant
Zmodo Technology Corporation Limited

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

_____________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26

August 14, 2018
DATED: _______________________________

24

27

3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

DECLARATION OF JACK SHAW, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT ZMODO
TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION LIMITED’S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY
Jack Shaw, Esq., declares as follows:
1.

I am an attorney with the law firm of Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP (“Kasowitz”).

I am admitted pro hac vice in the above-captioned cases and counsel of record for Zmodo
Technology Corporation Limited (“Zmodo”).
2.

I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth in this declaration, and if called

upon as a witness, I could competently testify to them.
3.

After receiving Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify, my colleagues from Kasowitz and

I initially contacted Plaintiff’s counsel about extending the deadline for Zmodo’s response to allow
Zmodo to conduct discovery regarding the alleged conflict of interest. The time extension
requested by Zmodo at that time was for thirty days for Zmodo to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion to
Disqualify. However, Plaintiff’s counsel refused to accommodate Zmodo in this regard.
4.

On August 7, 2018, I left two voice messages for Plaintiff’s counsel regarding a

two-day extension for Zmodo to file its Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify. I also
subsequently emailed twice Plaintiff’s counsel regarding Zmodo’s request for the two-day
extension. But, Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond to voice messages or emails as of the time of
filing the instant motion to extend.
5.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify raises various allegations against Zmodo’s counsel

(Kasowitz) regarding purported disqualifying conflict of interest, to which Kasowitz’s attorneys,
including the firm’s senior attorneys, require additional time to review thoroughly based on the
information known to date, and to respond accordingly.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 7th day of August, 2018.
/s/ Jack Shaw
Jack Shaw

26
27

4

1
2
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was electronically served on
counsel of record this 7th day of August, 2018, using the Court’s CM/ECF system.

4
5

/s/ Faith Radford
An Employee of Evans Fears & Schuttert LLP

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

5