Resorts World Las Vegas LLC v. Rock Fuel Media, Inc.

Filing 125

ORDER Granting 124 Stipulation for Extension of Time. Discovery due by 11/13/2025. Motions due by 12/15/2025. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 1/13/2026. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maximiliano D. Couvillier, III on 3/10/2025. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AMMi)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

MARK G. TRATOS, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 1086
[e-mail]
BETHANY L. RABE, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 11691
[e-mail]
KIMBERLY J. COOPER, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 9533
[e-mail]
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89135
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Counsel for Plaintiff/Counterdefendant
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
10845 Griffith Peak Dr., Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89135
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

11
12

RESORTS WORLD LAS VEGAS LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company,

13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
v.

21
22
23

(NINTH REQUEST)

Defendant.
ROCK FUEL MEDIA, INC., a California
corporation,

19
20

[RESUBMITTED] STIPULATION AND
PROPOSED ORDER TO EXTEND
DISCOVERY

ROCK FUEL MEDIA, INC., a California
corporation,

17
18

Case No.: 2:21-cv-02218-JAD-MDC

Counterclaimant,
v.
RESORTS WORLD LAS VEGAS LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; and DOE
and ROES I-X are unknown or not yet confirmed,
Counterdefendants.

24
25

RESORTS WORLD LAS VEGAS, LLC (“Resorts World”) and ROCK FUEL MEDIA, INC.

26

(“Rock Fuel”), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree to extend

27

deadlines for 120 days for the reasons outlined below. This stipulation is being resubmitted pursuant

28

to this Court’s order dated March 4, 2025 (ECF No. 123), denying the stipulation without prejudice
Page 1
ACTIVE 708071152v1

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
10845 Griffith Peak Dr., Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89135
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

1

for failure to address the excusable neglect factors.

2

I.

3

The parties hereby resubmit their stipulation to extend deadlines pursuant to this Court’s order

4

denying their prior stipulation without prejudice (ECF No. 122) for failure to address the excusable

5

neglect factors. See ECF No. 123. The parties request that the Court enter the new schedule for the

6

reasons described herein.

Introduction and Background

7

A. The Court Extends Deadlines to Accommodate IGT’s Deposition.

8

On December 11, 2024, this Court heard non-party IGT’s motion to quash subpoena. This

9

Court granted in part and denied in part that motion, ordering that the close of discovery be extended

10

until February 15, 2025 for the purpose of obtaining the deposition of an IGT 30(b)(6) representative,

11

but that IGT did not have to search for and produce documents in response to the Rock Fuel subpoena.

12

See ECF No. 107.

13

The Court ordered that the parties may submit a proposed stipulation addressing all other pre-

14

trial and discovery deadlines. Id. The parties did so, and the close of discovery and the summary

15

judgment deadline were extended pursuant to this Court’s order. See ECF No. 110. Rock Fuel served

16

an amended subpoena for a deposition of IGT to be conducted on February 4, 2025.

17

B. IGT Objects to the Court’s Denial of its Motion to Quash.

18

Meanwhile, IGT filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s order denying in part IGT’s motion

19

to quash subpoena, as well as an emergency motion to stay the deposition pending Judge Dorsey’s

20

ruling on the objections. See ECF No. 111, ECF No. 112. Judge Dorsey denied the emergency

21

motion to stay and set the objections for a hearing on January 21, 2025. See ECF No. 113.

22

C. The Deposition is Delayed Pursuant to Judge Dorsey’s Order.

23

At the hearing, Judge Dorsey heard argument from the parties and IGT. See ECF No. 116.

24

Judge Dorsey overruled the objections, but permitted IGT to file a motion to limit the topics of the

25

deposition in light of the Magistrate Judge’s ruling that IGT need not produce documents in response

26

to the subpoena. Id. Judge Dorsey reasoned that permitting deposition on certain topics would

27

effectively require IGT to perform the work of gathering documents that Judge Couvillier had held

28

was overly burdensome. Id.
Page 2
ACTIVE 708071152v1

1

With respect to scheduling, Judge Dorsey stated that the deposition would not be going

2

forward prior to February 15, 2025, and set another hearing for the afternoon of February 14, 2025

3

to make determinations as to the topics that would be permitted. Id. Judge Dorsey recognized that

4

the discovery and summary judgment deadlines would need to move out, and stated that she did not

5

think it was fruitful to have summary judgment briefing prior to the close of discovery. See ECF No.

6

117, at 29-30. Based on certain comments at the hearing, the parties believed that Judge Dorsey was

7

going to reset remaining deadlines at the February 14, 2025 hearing, after the issues relating to the

8

deposition were adjudicated, and therefore no stipulation to extend deadlines was necessary. Id., at

9

34-35.

10

D. Judge Dorsey Orders the Deposition to go Forward and the Parties Work to Find a

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
10845 Griffith Peak Dr., Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89135
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

11

Date.

12

On the afternoon of February 14, 2025, Judge Dorsey heard argument from the parties and

13

IGT regarding limiting the topics for the deposition. See ECF No. 120. Judge Dorsey limited the

14

topics by eliminating some topics, leaving some topics as-is, and narrowing other topics. Id. When

15

asked about rescheduling deadlines, she stated that if the parties wished to extend the discovery

16

schedule, they should seek that extension from the Magistrate Judge.

17

Immediately following the hearing, the parties spoke with counsel for IGT to determine when

18

a witness would be available. However, counsel for IGT represented that it needed more time to

19

determine witness availability given the Court’s ruling as to the scope and the topics.

20

As such, the parties sought to work with IGT to determine what date would be appropriate.

21

The parties believed this was important to determine prior to submitting a stipulation because a prior

22

stipulation to extend deadlines that did not include specific deposition dates had been rejected. See

23

ECF No. 97. Additionally, the parties needed to know when IGT’s witness would be available to

24

determine what length extension to request.

25
26

II.

The Parties Have Demonstrated Excusable Neglect to Move the Discovery
Deadline.

27

Request for relief from a case management deadline that has already passed requires a

28

showing of excusable neglect. See Tommy Lynch As Adm'r for the Est. of v. Hernandez, 2024 U.S.
Page 3
ACTIVE 708071152v1

1

Dist. LEXIS 222644, at *4 (D. Nev. Nov. 7, 2024). The excusable neglect analysis is guided by

2

factors that include (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and

3

its potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted

4

in good faith. Id. Here, each of these factors weighs in favor of moving the already-passed discovery

5

deadline.

6

1.

7

There is no danger of prejudice to either party here, as both parties agree that the deadline

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
10845 Griffith Peak Dr., Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89135
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

8

The Danger of Prejudice to the Opposing Party.

should be reopened.

9

2. The Length of the Delay and its Potential Impact on Proceedings.

10

As this Court noted, the deadline for the close of discovery was February 15, 2025. The

11

parties moved to extend that deadline on February 28, 2025, after the deadline had passed. This delay

12

of two weeks in seeking the extension is relatively short, and will not impact proceedings, especially

13

where both parties to the case agree that the deadlines should be extended.

14

3. The Reason for the Delay.

15

The delay was based upon the parties’ misunderstanding of certain comments at the January

16

21, 2025 hearing. The parties believed that Judge Dorsey was going to extend the discovery cutoff

17

and associated deadlines during the February 14, 2025 hearing, and therefore no stipulation to extend

18

deadlines prior to February 15 was necessary. However, that rescheduling did not occur at the

19

hearing.

20

Following the February 14, 2025 afternoon hearing, the parties would have had only a few

21

hours to file a stipulation prior to February 15, 2025. It may have been possible to do so, but IGT

22

was not able to provide information that quickly as to how long it needed to prepare and what specific

23

date its witness would be available given that the scope of the deposition was not known until the

24

Court ruled that day.

25

Over the following two weeks, Rock Fuel updated the subpoena in accordance with Judge

26

Dorsey’s order, Rock Fuel and Resorts World scheduled and had a discussion regarding potential

27

limitations to the subpoena in an effort to potentially take the deposition earlier, and the parties sought

28

confirmation of dates and timeframe from IGT. On February 28, IGT’s counsel confirmed the date
Page 4
ACTIVE 708071152v1

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
10845 Griffith Peak Dr., Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89135
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

1

of May 7, 2025 for its deposition. The parties filed their stipulation the same day.

2

4. Whether the Movant Acted in Good Faith.

3

Rock Fuel and Resorts World acted in good faith here.

As seen above, the parties

4

misunderstood Judge Dorsey’s statements at the January 21 hearing and believed she was going to

5

alter the schedule at the February 14 hearing, which would not have required a stipulation.

6

Thereafter, the parties worked together to work out remaining issues with the scope and scheduling

7

of the deposition and confirmed a date with IGT. They then filed the stipulation promptly. This case

8

has been ongoing for a long time and the parties have no desire to prolong it further; however, they

9

wish to extend professional courtesy to IGT and its counsel in terms of the deposition preparation

10

and scheduling.

11

III.

12

The Court Should Move the Deadlines in Accordance With the 120-Day
Extension Laid Out in the Parties’ Stipulation.

13

In coordinating with IGT, IGT’s counsel has stated that it cannot be ready for the deposition

14

prior to May, given the necessity of preparing the witness and obtaining and searching its records

15

from years ago to ensure knowledge of the topics of the notice. As such, the parties and IGT have

16

agreed on May 7, 2025 for the deposition of IGT.

17

The parties therefore hereby stipulate that discovery shall remain open until June 16, 2025 to

18

accommodate the IGT deposition as well as expert depositions (the parties wish to take expert

19

depositions following the IGT deposition, which is the last remaining fact deposition). The parties

20

have also agreed that Rock Fuel may attempt to seek the fact deposition of a representative of Joingo

21

during this time, given that Rock Fuel has recently identified documents in the prior productions in

22

which Joingo and IGT had communications Rock Fuel believes are relevant to the IGT app at issue.

23

Moreover, lead counsel for Resorts World has a prescheduled out-of-state trip scheduled during the

24

second two weeks of May.

25

The parties also wish to ensure time for briefing between the close of discovery and the

26

deadline for motions for summary judgment. The current dispositive motions deadline would require

27

summary judgment briefing to be filed prior to the close of discovery, which Judge Dorsey has said

28

she does not want. See ECF No. 117, at 29-30. As such, the parties hereby stipulate and agree to
Page 5
ACTIVE 708071152v1