Navigators Insurance Company v. Sparta Insurance Company

Filing 43

ORDER Granting 42 Fourth Stipulation re Scheduling Order Deadline and Pretrial Order Deadline. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 6/11/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 3/27/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1 Michael J. Nuñez, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 10703
[e-mail]
2
Tyler N. Ure Esq.
3 Nevada Bar No. 11730
[e-mail]
4 MURCHISON & CUMMING, LLP
350 South Rampart Boulevard, Suite 320
5 Las Vegas, Nevada 89145
Telephone: [phone]
6 Facsimile: [phone]
7 Attorneys for Defendant,
SPARTA INSURANCE COMPANY
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
11
12 NAVIGATORS INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.

15 SPARTA INSURANCE COMPANY,

CASE NO. 2:17-cv-02999-RFB-CWH
STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR
LIMITED MODIFICATION TO
SCHEDULING ORDER DEADLINE
(FOURTH REQUEST) AND FOR
EXTENSION OF RECENTLY SET
PRETRIAL ORDER DEADLINE

Defendant.

16
17

STIPULATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER DEADLINES

18
19

This stipulation to modify the scheduling order, and to extend the recently set pretrial

20 order deadline, is entered into by and between Plaintiff NAVIGATORS INSURANCE
21 COMPANY (hereinafter "Plaintiff") and SPARTA INSURANCE COMPANY (hereinafter
22 "Defendant"), by and through their attorneys of record, pursuant to LR 6-1(b) and LR 26(4).
23 This is the fourth request to modify the scheduling order. The stipulation is based upon the
24 following:
25

A.

26

Plaintiff and Defendant have exchanged initial disclosures of documents and the names

A statement of Discovery Completed to Date:

27 of individuals with knowledge of the facts pertaining to Plaintiff's claims against the Defendant.
28
1

Case No. 2:17-cv-02999-RFB-CWH

1 The Defendant has propounded written discovery requests to Plaintiff, including interrogatories
2 and requests for production, and Plaintiff has served its responses to Defendant's
3 interrogatories. The Plaintiff has propounded interrogatories and requests for production to
4 Defendant, and the Defendant responded on June 28, 2018. Defendant provided documents
5 in connection with a subpoena Plaintiff issued to Defendant’s third party administrator. Plaintiff
6 propounded a second set of interrogatories and requests for production to Defendant, and
7 Defendant responded on November 30, 2018. The responses to the request for production
8 consisted in objections. Plaintiff recently set the deposition of Defendant, Sparta's Person
9 Most Knowledgeable, for April 1, 2019.
10

B.

 Plaintiff and Defendant anticipate taking the depositions of the parties’ FRCP

11

30(b)(6) Person(s) with Knowledge.

12

 Pursuant to the Court’s order, Defendant will produce documents in response

13

to Plaintiff’s second set of requests for production by March 29, 2019.

14
15
16
17

A specific description of the discovery that remains to be completed.

C.

The reason why discovery remaining was not completed within the time
limits set by the discovery plan.

On March 8, 2019, the Court held a hearing and issued rulings on dispositive motions.

18 Also at the hearing, the Court ordered that parties shall submit a joint pretrial order by April 19,
19 2019. Since the ruling, Plaintiff and Defendant have agreed to a mediation. The Mediation
20 has been set for April 29, 2019.
21

The parties aver, pursuant to Local Rule 6-1, that good cause exists for the requested

22 extensions. The parties have not yet taken their respective PMK depositions because they
23 wished to attempt to achieve a resolution of the case without incurring fees and costs for the
24 depositions, and without requiring personnel of the parties to take time away from their duties
25 to prepare for and appear at the depositions. Good causes exists for extending the time for
26 taking the parties’ PMKs because the parties have agreed to a mediation and hence may be
27 able to avoid incurring these fees and costs and requiring personnel of the parties to take time
28 away from their duties.
2

Case No. 2:17-cv-02999-RFB-CWH

1

Good cause exists for extending the submission date of the joint pretrial order because

2 the mediation may render the order unnecessary. The order is governed by LR 16-3, and is
3 extensive. It requires, among other things, a statement of the nature of the action and the
4 parties’ contentions; a statement of uncontested facts deemed material; a statement of
5 contested issues of fact; a statement of contested issues of law; lists or schedules of all exhibits
6 that will be offered in evidence by the parties at the trial; lists of exhibits to which objection is
7 made and the grounds for objections; and a list of witnesses who may be called at trial.
8 Extending the pretrial order deadline until after the mediation may enable the parties to avoid
9 the costs that would be incurred to prepare the order.
10

Under the extensions proposed by the parties, should the mediation be unsuccessful,

11 the parties will be able to take the PMK depositions, and, subsequently, prepare the pretrial
12 order. The deadline for the pretrial order needs to be after the deadline for PMK depositions
13 because the depositions may impact the contents of the pretrial order.
14 / / /
15 / / /
16 / / /
17 / / /
18 / / /
19 / / /
20 / / /
21 / / /
22 / / /
23 / / /
24 / / /
25 / / /
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /
3

Case No. 2:17-cv-02999-RFB-CWH

1
2
3
4
5

D.

A proposed schedule for completing all remaining discovery:

Deadline
Expert disclosure deadline

Current Deadline Date
Closed

Extension Sought
Closed

Rebuttal expert disclosure
deadline

Closed

Closed

Deadline
Depositions

For

PMK April 8, 2019

May 23, 2019

6
7
8
9
10
11

Dispositive Motion Deadline

November 8, 2018

Closed

Pre-Trial Order Deadlines

April 19, 2018

June 11, 2019

Amend Pleadings and Add closed
Parties
Interim Status Report
December 10, 2018 (60
days before new discovery
cut-off per LR 26-3)

Closed
Closed

12

DATED: March 29, 2019

DATED: March 29, 2019

13

MURCHISON & CUMMING, LLP

MORALES, FIERRO & REEVES

By:
/s/ Tyler N. Ure
Michael J. Nuñez, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 10703
Tyler N. Ure, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 11730
350 S. Rampart Blvd., Suite 320
Las Vegas, Nevada 89145
Attorneys for Defendant

By:

14
15
16
17
18
19

/s/ Ramiro Morales
Ramiro Morales, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 7101
600 South Tonopah Drive, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89106
Attorneys for Plaintiff

20
21
22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED:
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
March 27, 2019
DATED: ____________________________

25
26
27
28
4

Case No. 2:17-cv-02999-RFB-CWH