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)

Download PDF
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: (702) 921-2460 Facsimile: (702) 921-2461 Kirsten.Milton@jacksonlewis.com Melisa H. Panagakos, pro hac vice JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 950 17th Street, Suite 2600 Denver, Colorado 80202 Telephone: (303) 892-0404 Facsimile: (303) 892-5575 Melisa.Panagakos@jacksonlewis.com 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

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?