Legar et al v. Landry's Inc dba Golden Nugget

Filing 65

ORDER Granting 64 Stipulation to Continue Deadlines Set Forth in the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. No Further Extensions Will Be Granted. Discovery due by 8/22/2022. Motions due by 10/21/2022. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 11/16/2022. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 5/10/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LOE)

Case 2:20-cv-02274-RFB-NJK Document 64 Filed 05/09/22 Page 1 of 8
65
05/10/22

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Kirsten A. Milton
Nevada State Bar No. 14401
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
300 S Fourth Street, Suite 900
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
Melisa H. Panagakos, pro hac vice
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
950 17th Street, Suite 2600
Denver, Colorado 80202
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant Landry’s Inc.

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13
14
15
16
17

DISTRICT OF NEVADA
RITA LEGER, individually, RAYMOND
ALLEN, individually, DIYANA
VALKANOVA, individually, CHRISTINE
CHENH, individually, ANTHONY DICH,
individually and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated,

18
19
20
21

Plaintiff,
vs.
LANDRY’S INC. dba GOLDEN NUGGET,
and DOES 1 through 25,
Defendants.

22

Case No. 2:20-cv-02274-RFB-NJK

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO
CONTINUE CERTAIN DEADLINES SET
FORTH IN THE DISCOVERY PLAN
AND SCHEDULING ORDER (ECF NO.
61)
(SECOND REQUEST)

23
24

Defendant, through its counsel Jackson Lewis P.C., Kirsten Milton, and Plaintiffs, through

25

counsel Burke Huber, at the Van Law Firm, pursuant to Local Rule 26-3, submit this Stipulation

26

and Order to Continue Certain Deadlines Set Forth in the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order

27

(ECF No. 61).

28

Case 2:20-cv-02274-RFB-NJK Document 64 Filed 05/09/22 Page 2 of 8
65
05/10/22

1

The parties do not submit this Stipulation lightly as they each and collectively understand

2

that discovery has been ongoing in this case and are aware of the Court’s December 21, 2021 Order,

3

in which the Court granted the parties’ request acknowledging that the “bulk of the request . . . is

4

based on Plaintiffs’ counsel’s busy case load,” but “as a one-time courtesy,” the Court would grant

5

the parties’ request. ECF No. 61. The parties are also aware that the Court “is not inclined to grant

6

further extension requests,” Id., but believe that, in this instance, good cause exists to modify the

7

case schedule as proposed below because otherwise Defendant’s defense of the case will be

8

severely prejudice and, it will otherwise be punished for its willingness to extend Plaintiffs

9

professional courtesies in light of the personal and professional issues that have arisen during the

10

course of the litigation. Therefore, in an effort to cooperate and ensure that each party has sufficient

11

time to complete discovery, the parties submit this Stipulation and seek the Court’s indulgence for

12

an extension of certain deadlines.

13

An extension of relevant deadlines is needed so that Plaintiff may conduct additional

14

depositions, as well as obtain additional, relevant documents from Defendant related to the

15

collection of vacation tokes. Moreover, Defendant needs the opportunity to conduct additional

16

written and oral discovery of the named and opt-in plaintiffs, which it, unfortunately, has been

17

unable to do over the last two months due to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s schedule. Specifically, on

18

February 8, 2022, Defendant’s counsel offered the week of February 28, 2022 for the depositions

19

of Defendant’s witnesses, Sherri Vaughan, Former GNLV Vice President of Human Resources,

20

and Jason Sides, GNLV’s Vice President of Casino Operations. At that same time, Defendant’s

21

counsel offered times on February 16, 17, and 21, 2022 for her to conduct a telephone interview of

22

Plaintiff Leger. On Plaintiffs’ counsel’s suggestion, he offered to present his client informally for

23

an interview about her claims and Defendant’s counsel took him up on the opportunity.

24

Unfortunately, Defendant’s counsel did not hear back from Plaintiffs’ counsel, and, on February

25

18, 2022, followed up to schedule the above interview and depositions. On February 22, 2022,

26

Plaintiffs’ counsel informed Defendant’s counsel that due to the unfortunate passing of one of his

27

firm’s attorneys, it had been “all hands on deck.” He stated that he could not go forward with the

28

depositions on February 28, 2022, but was available on March 2 and 3, 2022. Due to commitments
2

Case 2:20-cv-02274-RFB-NJK Document 64 Filed 05/09/22 Page 3 of 8
65
05/10/22

1

in other matters, including issues related to travel arrangements, the parties scheduled and

2

conducted the depositions of Ms. Vaughan and Mr. Sides on March 16, 2022. On February 28,

3

2022, Plaintiffs’ counsel also gave Defendant’s counsel the opportunity to interview telephonically

4

Ms. Leger about her claims.

5

On March 17, 2022, Defendant asked to conduct Ms. Leger’s deposition on March 29, 2022,

6

and explained that, based on her interview of Ms. Leger on February 28, she thought the parties

7

should discuss the claims as alleged and whether Plaintiffs were willing to drop one of the claims.

8

From Defense counsel’s perspective, whether Plaintiffs continued to pursue the particular claim

9

significantly impacted the scope of discovery – i.e., if Plaintiffs dropped the claim, the scope of

10

discovery would be significantly limited – and Defendant would likely not need to pursue the same

11

amount of written or oral discovery, making the litigation of the claims as efficient as possible.

12

That same day, Defendant’s counsel also asked Plaintiffs’ counsel to provide her with the complete

13

list of individuals who opted in to the lawsuit, so that Defendants could issue written discovery and

14

decide which individuals to depose. The opt-in notice period closed on March 19, 2022. On March

15

22, 2022, Defendant’s counsel asked for the final opt-in list. On March 25, 2022, Plaintiffs provided

16

Defendant with an incomplete list of the opt-ins, explaining that Plaintiffs were still “going through

17

the mail from last week.” Since then, Defendant has made repeated requests for the final and

18

complete opt-in list, but, unfortunately, as of the date of this filing, still does not have the final list.

19

Without that final list, Defendant is unable to decide from which individuals it will seek to pursue

20

discovery – e.g., in the parties Amended Joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order, ECF No. 51,

21

the parties agreed that Defendant could “take the depositions of up to 25 individuals who opt in to

22

the collective action; however, if more than 100 individuals opt in to the collective action,

23

Defendant shall be entitled to depose 25 of those individuals who opt in.” Plaintiffs’ delay in

24

providing this final list has hindered Defendant’s ability to make informed and strategic decisions

25

about the discovery it needs to pursue.

26
27
28
3

Case 2:20-cv-02274-RFB-NJK Document 64 Filed 05/09/22 Page 4 of 8
65
05/10/22

1

Moreover, with respect to Ms. Leger’s deposition, due to a previously scheduled trial,

2

Plaintiffs’ counsel was unavailable on March 29, 2022 and asked for proposed dates in April, but

3

did not respond to Defendant’s counsel’s inquiry regarding the scope of the claims. After going

4

back and forth on dates, on April 1, 2022, Defendant confirmed Ms. Leger’s deposition for April

5

14, 2022 and the deposition of Defendant’s witness, Kim McCulley, for April 15, 2022. Because

6

counsel for Defendant had to book travel arrangements for the depositions, on April 4, 2022, she

7

asked counsel for Plaintiffs to confirm the dates one last time. On April 8, 2022, Plaintiffs’ counsel

8

informed defense counsel that he had an emergency and needed to reschedule the depositions

9

scheduled for the following week. That same day, Defense counsel asked for dates of availability

10

for the next two weeks to reschedule the deposition (except for Mondays, Defendant’s counsel

11

offered anytime the weeks of April 18 and 24, 2022). When Defendant’s counsel did not hear back,

12

on April 11, 2022, Defendant’s counsel followed up and asked Plaintiffs’ counsel to confirm

13

availability.

14

Understanding Plaintiffs’ counsel was likely dealing with the previously-referenced

15

emergency and hoping the parties could resolve the issues with having to unnecessarily involve the

16

Court, Defendant’s counsel followed up on April 21, 2022 again asking where the parties stood on

17

all outstanding issues – i.e., opt-in collective list, scope of claims, Plaintiff Leger’s deposition, and

18

deposition of Mr. McCulley – and when it could expect a response. On April 23, 2022, Plaintiffs’

19

counsel emailed Defendant’s counsel, apologized for his delayed response, explained he was in the

20

process of changing firms, and asked if the parties could speak the next week. Almost immediately,

21

Defendant’s counsel responded and agreed the parties needed to talk the following week.

22

Defendant’s counsel did not hear from Plaintiffs’ counsel the following week, therefore, on May 3,

23

2022, Defendant’s counsel sent Plaintiffs’ counsel another email asking to schedule a call. On May

24

4, 2022, Plaintiffs’ counsel called Defendant’s counsel and left a voice message. That same day,

25

Defendant’s counsel called Plaintiffs’ counsel back and left a voice message. On May 5, 2022,

26

Defendant’s counsel sent Plaintiffs’ counsel an email saying that she wanted to speak that

27

afternoon. The parties spoke on May 5, 2022. Plaintiffs’ counsel stated he would confirm the final

28

opt-in list, stated that Plaintiffs were not willing to drop the claim Defendant had been asking about,
4

Case 2:20-cv-02274-RFB-NJK Document 64 Filed 05/09/22 Page 5 of 8
65
05/10/22

1

and agreed that, at this juncture, the parties would need to ask the Court to modify the current case

2

schedule. Recognizing the delays have impeded Defendant’s ability to build its defense, and the

3

strain amended case schedules put on the Court’s case load, on May 6, 2022, the parties agreed to

4

seek the Court’s approval for the below modified case schedule, attempting to minimize the overall

5

changes as much as possible.
AMENDED PROPOSED DISCOVERY SCHEDULE

6
7

I.

Discovery Completed to Date and Notice to the Conditionally
Certified Collective Members

8
1.

9
10

information of the conditionally certified class members.
2.

11
12
13

Plaintiffs received a quote on the price for notice.
3.

22
23
24

On March 16, 2022, Plaintiffs conducted the depositions of Defense witnesses Ms.

Vaughan and Mr. Sides.
7.

19

21

On February 28, 2022, Defendant interviewed Plaintiff Leger about her claims.

6.

17

The notice period closed on March 19, 2022.

5.

16

On January 18, 2022, CPT sent notice to the conditionally certified class members.

4.

15

20

27

The parties have exchanged initial and supplemental disclosures, as well as written

discovery and responses. Plaintiffs’ additional written responses are currently due on May 13,
2022. Defendant also has agreed to produce additional documents related to vacation toke
allocations to Plaintiffs.
II.

Discovery Left to be Completed and Additional Acknowledgments
1.

Named Plaintiffs will provide responses to written discovery requests on May 13,
2022.

25
26

On November 8, 2021, Plaintiffs’ counsel reached out to CPT Group for an estimate

on the cost of sending out notice to the conditionally certified class members. That same day,

14

18

On October 18, 2021, Defendant turned over the list of names and contact

2.

Defendant will provide documents related to the calculation of vacation tokes on or

on May 10, 2022.

28
5

Case 2:20-cv-02274-RFB-NJK Document 64 Filed 05/09/22 Page 6 of 8
65
05/10/22

3.

1
2

Plaintiffs need to take the deposition of Kim McCulley and potentially other Defense

witnesses.
4.

3

Defendant needs to take the depositions of the named Plaintiffs and, as soon as it

4

has the final list of the opt-in collective members, issue written and oral discovery consistent with

5

the parties’ previously agreed upon discovery parameters, ECF No. 51.
Proposed New Dates

6
7

Event

Current Date

Proposed New Date

8

Discovery Cut-Off

June 7, 2022

Plaintiffs’ Deadline:
July 7, 2022

9

11

Initial Expert Disclosure

April 8, 2022

Defendant’s Deadline: August
22, 2022
No change

12

Rebuttal Expert Disclosure

May 9, 2022

No change

13

Rule 23 Class Certification July 22, 2022
Deadline

No change

Deadline to Oppose Rule 23 August 22, 2022
Motion for Class Certification

September 22, 2022

Reply Brief to Defendant’s May 25, 2022
Opposition

October 24, 2022

Deadline
Motions

Dispositive July 22, 2022

October 21, 2022

Dispositive August 22, 2022

November 21, 2022

10

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Oppositions
Motions

for
to

Reply Briefs to Oppositions to September 22, 2022
Dispositive Motions

December 21, 2022

Pre-Trial Order

November 16, 2022, or 30
days after resolution of
dispositive motions or further
Court order

August 22, 2022

24
25
26
27
28
6

Case 2:20-cv-02274-RFB-NJK Document 64 Filed 05/09/22 Page 7 of 8
65
05/10/22

5.

1

Alternative Dispute Resolution:

In compliance with Local Rule 26-1(6)(7),

2

Plaintiffs certify that they have met and conferred with Defendant about the possibility of using

3

alternative dispute-resolution processes, including mediation, arbitration, and neutral evaluation.

4

The parties reserve the right to further confer about the possibility of using alternative dispute

5

resolution processes at the close of discovery.
6.

6

Alternative Forms of Case Disposition: In compliance with Local Rule 26-1(b)(8),

7

the parties certify that they have considered consent to trial by a magistrate judge under 28 U.

8

S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73 and the use of the Short Trial Program (General Order 2013-

9

01).
7.

10

Electronic Evidence. The parties anticipate presenting evidence in an electronic

11

format to jurors for the purposes of jury deliberations. The parties propose that any electronic

12

evidence will be reduced to searchable PDF documents, to the extend practicable, in compliance

13

with the Court’s requirements for the electronic jury display evidence system.
8.

14

Later Appearing Parties: A copy of this discovery plan and scheduling order shall

15

be served on any person served after it is entered or, if additional defendants should appear, within

16

five (5) days of their first appearance. This discovery plan and scheduling order shall apply to such

17

later appearing party, unless the Court, on motion and for good cause shown, orders otherwise.
9.

18

Extensions or Modifications of the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order: In

19

accordance with Local Rule 26-3, a stipulation or motion for modification or extension of this

20

discovery plan and scheduling order and any deadline contained herein, must be made not later than

21

twenty-one (21) days before the subject deadline.
10.

22

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) Disclosures: The disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P.

23

26(a)(3), and any objections thereto, shall be included in the pretrial order.

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
7

Case 2:20-cv-02274-RFB-NJK Document 64 Filed 05/09/22 Page 8 of 8
65
05/10/22

1

11.

2

Dated this 9th day of May, 2022.

3

This is the second request to extend and amend the discovery order.

VAN LAW FIRM

JACKSON LEWIS P.C.

/s/ Burke Huber
Burke Huber, Bar No. 10902
1290 S. Jones Blvd.
Las Vegas, Nevada 89146

/s/ Kirsten A. Milton
Kirsten A. Milton, Bar No. 14401
300 S. Fourth Street, Ste. 900
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Attorneys for Defendant
Landry’s Inc.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

ORDER
NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13
14

United States District Court/Magistrate Judge
Nancy J. Koppe
United States Magistrate Judge

15

Dated: May 10, 2022.
Dated: _________________________

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8