Snap Lock Industries, Inc. v. Swisstrax Corporation

Filing 106

ORDER granting 104 Stipulation; Re: 92 Motion for Protective Order, 97 Motion to Seal. Motion Hearing set for 3/12/2019 at 09:00 AM in LV Courtroom 3B before Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 2/5/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

Case 2:17-cv-02742-RFB-PAL Document 104 Filed 01/31/19 Page 1 of 3

1 DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
John L. Krieger
2 Nevada Bar No. 6023
Email: [e-mail]
3 Steven A. Caloiaro
Nevada Bar No. 12344
4 Email: [e-mail]
Christian T. Spaulding
5 Nevada Bar No. 14277
Email: [e-mail]
6 8363 West Sunset Road, Suite 200
Las Vegas, Nevada 89113-2210
7 Tel: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant/Counter-Claimant
8 Swisstrax Corporation
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
11

SNAP LOCK INDUSTRIES, INC. a Utah Case No: 2:17-cv-02742-RFB-PAL
12 corporation,
13
14

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,

18

Defendant/Counter-Claimant

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO EXTEND HEARING ON
vs.
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR
15
PROTECTIVE ORDER AND MOTION
16 SWISSTRAX CORPORATION., a California TO SEAL
corporation,
(First Request)
17

19 AND ALL RELATED MATTERS.
20

Defendant Swisstrax Corporation (“Swisstrax”) and Plaintiff Snap Lock Industries, Inc.

21 (“Snap Lock”) (collectively, “Parties”), through their undersigned counsel, hereby respectfully
22 jointly submit this Stipulation to extend the hearing on Emergency Motion for Protective Order
23 (ECF No. 92) and Motion to Seal (ECF No. 97) and state as follows:
24

1.

On December 18, 2018, Snap Lock filed its Emergency Motion for Protective

25 Order Regarding Subpoenas (ECF No. 92).
26

2.

On January 2, 2019, Swisstrax filed its Opposition to Snap Lock’s Emergency

27 Motion for Protective Order Regarding Subpoenas (ECF No. 96) in conjunction with its Motion
28 for Leave to File Under Seal Exhibits 4 and 6 to the Caloiaro Declaration in Support of
1

Case 2:17-cv-02742-RFB-PAL Document 104 Filed 01/31/19 Page 2 of 3

1 Swisstrax’s Response to Emergency Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 97).
2

3.

On January 9, 2019, Snap Lock filed its Reply in Support of Motion for Protective

3 Order (ECF No. 99).
4

4.

On January 22, 2019, this Court entered its Notice Setting Hearing (ECF No. 100)

5 on the Emergency Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 92) and Motion to Seal (ECF No. 97).
6 The Motion Hearing is currently set for February 12, 2019.
7

5.

Counsel for Swisstrax has previous conflicts with the current Motion Hearing date

8 that it is unable to reschedule. Due to previously scheduled conflicts, counsel for Snap Lock is
9 thereafter unavailable from February 18, 2019, continuing through March 6, 2019.
10

6.

Counsel for Swisstrax has scheduled depositions in the Northern District of Texas

11 from February 11, 2019 to February 14, 2018.

Counsel tried several times to move the

12 depositions in light of the Court’s notice of hearing, but was unable to do so due to the
13 availability of the witness and the existing scheduling order in the action. Additionally, Counsel
14 for Swisstrax subsequently has depositions scheduled to be taken in California from March 5,
15 2019 to March 7, 2019 regarding an action in the District of Connecticut involving deponents
16 traveling form Japan. The parties have negotiated these dates for several months and were only
17 recently able to come to an agreement regarding the proposed dates.
18

7.

Counsel for Snap Lock will be out of the jurisdiction from February 18, 2019, to

19 March 6, 2019, in Minnesota and Florida for a scheduled business trip and family vacation.
20

8.

Due to these significant scheduling conflicts, the Parties respectfully request that

21 this Court extend the Motion Hearing to a date in which both parties are available.
22

9.

Good cause exists and the Parties are not seeking the extension for undue delay.

23 Instead, the parties are seeking an extension to promote judicial economy by ensuring that the
24 Motion Hearing can be conducted with counsel most familiar with the case and relevant issues
25 present and able to fully argue their respective positions.
26 / / /
27 / / /
28

///
2

Case 2:17-cv-02742-RFB-PAL Document 104 Filed 01/31/19 Page 3 of 3

1

10.

Therefore, the Parties respectfully request a continuance of the Motion Hearing,

2 to a date convenient to the Court’s calendar after March 7, 2019.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Dated this 30th day of January 2019
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC

DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP

/s/ Steven A. Caloiaro
John L. Krieger
Steven A. Caloiaro
Christian T. Spaulding
8363 West Sunset Road, Suite 200
Las Vegas, NV 89113
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

/s/ Tamara L. Kapaloski
Brett L. Foster
Tamara L. Kapaloski
Dorsey & Whitney, LLP
111 South Main Street, Suite 2100
Salt Lake City, UT 84111-2176
Telephone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

ORDER
Good Cause appearing, the Motion Hearing is vacated and reset. The Motion Hearing
will be held on March 12, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3B.
IT IS SO ORDERED:
____________________________________
Hon. Peggy A. Leen
United States Magistrate Judge
DATED: February 5, 2019

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3