Paradise Entertainment Limited et al v. Empire Technological Group Limited et al

Filing 67

ORDER granting 66 Stipulation to Extend Case Deadlines. Discovery due by 11/21/2025. Motions due by 12/19/2025. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 1/23/2026. The Court, having reviewed the above stipulation of the parties, and good ca use appearing therefor, hereby GRANTS the above stipulation, ADOPTS the proposed discovery deadlines as set forth herein, ORDERS Plaintiffs to file either a notice or amended motions by April 18, 2025, and EXTENDS Defendants' deadlines to respond to Plaintiffs' motions to compel (ECF Nos. 55 and 58 until May 2, 2025. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler on 3/4/2025. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - CAH)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

JEAN-PAUL CIARDULLO, ESQ. (pro hac vice)
California Bar No. 284170
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
555 Flower Street, Suite 3300
Los Angeles, California 90071
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

OLIVER J. PANCHERI, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 7476
JESSICA M. LUJAN, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 14913
SPENCER FANE LLP
300 South Fourth Street, Suite 1600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
STEWART RAY NELSON, ESQ.
(pro hac vice)
Utah Bar No. 17286
HANNAH L. ANDREWS, ESQ.
(pro hac vice)
Utah Bar No. 18157
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
95 South State Street, Suite 2500
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Tel.: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]

15 Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants
16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17
18
19
20

DISTRICT OF NEVADA
PARADISE ENTERTAINMENT
LIMITED, a Bermuda corporation; and
LT GAME, INC., a
Nevada corporation,
Plaintiffs,

21
22
23
24
25
26

Case No. 2:24-cv-00428-JCM-BNW
JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND CASE
DEADLINES
[SECOND REQUEST]

v.
EMPIRE TECHNOLOGICAL GROUP
LIMITED, a Nevada corporation;
GAMING SPECIALIZED LOGISTICS
LLC, a Nevada limited liability company;
LINYI FENG, an individual; ROY
KELCEY ALLISON, an individual; and
DARYN KIELY, an individual,

27

Defendants.

28
STIPULATION
Case No. 2:24-cv-00428-JCM-BNW
4858-5734-6044.2

1

Plaintiffs Paradise Entertainment Limited (“Paradise”) and LT Game, Inc. (“LT Game”)

2

(collectively “Plaintiffs”) and Defendants Empire Technological Group Limited (“Empire”), Linyi

3

(Frank) Feng, Roy Kelcey Allison, Gaming Specialized Logistics LLC (“GSL”), and Daryn Kiely

4

(collectively, “Defendants”) by and through their undersigned counsel of record, hereby stipulate and

5

agree to a 90-day extension of the case deadlines for two main reasons: (1) to allow for overseas service

6

upon the proposed new defendant Betty Zhao in China, as well as discovery with respect to her, should

7

the Court grant Plaintiffs’ pending unopposed Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint (ECF No. 63),

8

and (2) to allow Defendants time to make a substantial new production of documents related to Plaintiffs’

9

recently filed Motions to Compel (ECF Nos. 55 and 58) prior to further briefing on those Motions, in case

10

such production may moot a substantial portion of the Motions and save the Court judicial resources.

11

The Parties note that they have also scheduled a mediation in April.

12

The Parties are making their request well in advance of the current May 30, 2025 fact discovery

13

cut-off, and submit that there is good cause for the schedule extension, as discussed below. The Parties’

14

request follows on a previous Joint Stipulation on November 22, 2024 (ECF No. 44), that is discussed

15

below.

16

A.

17

Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on March 1, 2024, alleging that, since approximately 2017,

18

Defendants have been engaged in misconduct including fraud, breach of fiduciary duties, trade secret

19

misappropriation, copyright infringement, and breach of contract, among other claims. (ECF No. 1.)

20

Defendants deny Plaintiffs’ allegations, maintain that they are not liable for the alleged misconduct, and

21

have alleged their own counterclaims.

Background

22

Since then, the Parties have conducted significant written discovery and produced a voluminous

23

amount of documents. Document discovery has spanned a period of more than seven years and touches

24

upon almost all aspects of the Parties’ business operations. This has resulted in each side reviewing and

25

producing records from document collections that have turned out to be terabytes in size. The Parties also

26

anticipate that over twenty (20) depositions may be taken by the time discovery closes, with the first six

27

of those having been completed.

28

-1-

STIPULATION

Case No. 2:24-cv-00428-JCM-BNW

1

B.

2

On February 27, 2025 (the deadline for filing motions to amend the pleadings), Plaintiffs filed

3

their Motion to Amend (ECF No. 63), which among other things seeks to add a new defendant, Betty

4

Zhao, to the case based upon materials obtained during the discovery period. Defendants have not opposed

5

the amendment.

Plaintiffs’ Proposed Amended Complaint, And New Defendant In China

6

Ms. Zhao is located in China, which as a practical matter is expected to result in her not making

7

an appearance in this case until May or June of 2025. Thus, the Parties agree that there would not be

8

sufficient time left in the current discovery period to allow Ms. Zhao to enter the case, and to also allow

9

her to participate in discovery before the May 30, 2025 discovery cut-off. Defendants’ counsel are

10

currently determining if they will be representing Ms. Zhao, but Defendants agree regardless that more

11

time would be needed to allow her participation in the case.

12

C.

13

On November 22, 2024, the Parties filed a Joint Stipulation with the Court (ECF No. 44) seeking

14

an extension of the original case schedule in view of a complicated discovery dispute that had arisen with

15

respect to claims of privilege regarding Defendants’ communications with the law firm Lewis Roca. On

16

November 25, 2024, the Court granted the Parties’ requested schedule extension, moving the close of fact

17

discovery to May 30, 2025, to allow the parties time to attempt to resolve the issue. (ECF No. 45.) The

18

parties have since worked in good faith to address the issue, while also otherwise diligently engaging in

19

substantial ongoing discovery, including a series of depositions that is expected to continue over the next

20

few months. Defendants served two lengthy privilege logs, and the Parties continued to confer on the

21

issue. However, on February 24, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel seeking production of the

22

Lewis Roca records, or in the alternative seeking an in-camera review by the Court of those records. (ECF

23

No. 55.)

Plaintiffs’ Recent Motions To Compel

24

On February 25, 2025, Plaintiffs also filed a second Motion to Compel directed to five categories

25

of documents and information. (ECF No. 58.) The Court granted Plaintiffs’ request to exceed normal page

26

limits because of the length of the motion.

27

Defendants contend that responding to both Motions to Compel – which Plaintiffs concede are

28

lengthy – would take a substantial amount of time, but more importantly that a significant portion of the
-24858-5734-6044.2

STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEADLINES
Case No. 2:24-cv-00428-JCM-BNW

1

Motions to Compel might be mooted by a forthcoming sizeable document production(s). Defendants have

2

agreed to complete their further production(s) by March 28, 2025, and expect it to comprise thousands of

3

documents that touch on categories of documents in both motions to compel and other outstanding

4

discovery requests. Defendants agree to generally identify, at the time of production, which documents in

5

their productions that are responsive to which categories of documents Plaintiffs identified in their

6

motions. The Parties propose that Plaintiffs then review Defendants’ document production, whereupon

7

by April 18, 2025, Plaintiffs will either (1) file a notice indicating their intent to maintain or withdraw any

8

of their pending motions, or (2) file amended motions based upon Defendants’ intervening document

9

production. The Parties propose that Defendants deadline to respond to any remaining operative motions

10

be extended to three (3) weeks from that filing date, and that Plaintiffs be allowed two (2) weeks for reply.

11

D.

12

The Parties have diligently conducted expansive discovery to-date, which has included:

13

Statement Specifying the Discovery Completed and What Remains

•

14
15

terabytes of data
•

16
17

Review and production of several hundred thousand documents – amounting to many

6 depositions of former employees of Plaintiffs and Defendants, with potentially more than
20 depositions planned in total

•

18

29 subpoenas served to non-party witnesses seeking documents and depositions (though
depositions dates have not yet been scheduled)

19

•

Defendants’ production of lengthy privilege logs with respect to the Lewis Roca records

20

•

A cumulative total of 108 Interrogatories served among the Parties

21

•

A cumulative total of 238 Requests for Production served among the Parties

22

•

Numerous meet and confers

23

Document discovery has spanned a period of time of almost a decade, and touches upon almost all

24

aspects of the Parties’ US business operations. This has resulted in each side reviewing and producing

25

records from document collections that have turned out to be terabytes in size, which is beyond what the

26

parties originally expected at the start of the case. Additionally, the Parties have been preparing for an in-

27

person source code review in Las Vegas.

28

For their own part, Plaintiffs state here that they were previously unaware of the large number of
-34858-5734-6044.2

STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEADLINES
Case No. 2:24-cv-00428-JCM-BNW

1

people who have been employed by Empire, which has increased the expected witness count and led to a

2

number of subpoenas to former employees. The Parties are still coordinating those depositions and

3

otherwise managing the non-party discovery.

4

The Parties have also exchanged numerous discovery deficiency letters and engaged in repeated

5

meet and confer sessions and other correspondence over the past several months. The Parties have been

6

working diligently to try to resolve their discovery disputes by good faith negotiation rather than motion

7

practice.

8

In sum, discovery still to be completed includes:

9

•

Defendants’ forthcoming production discussed supra relating to the Motions to Compel

10

•

Completion of any other remaining document review and production

11

•

Source code review

12

•

Coordination with the subpoenaed non-parties, receiving their document productions, and

13

arranging their depositions

14

•

Noticing and taking of party depositions, including coordination with overseas witnesses

15

•

Further conferences to resolve any open discovery issues

16

E.

17

In view of (1) the anticipated addition of Ms. Zhao to the lawsuit, (2) the Parties’ proposal for

18

attempting a more orderly resolution of the Motions to Compel that might save the Court substantial

19

judicial resources, and (3) the otherwise substantial amount of discovery still underway, the Parties

20

respectfully request a 90-day extension of the case schedule. This Parties have been diligently engaged in

21

discovery to-date, and submit that good cause exists supporting the request so as to allow the orderly

22

completion of discovery – including as to Ms. Zhao – as well as sufficient time to try to resolve a complex

23

discovery dispute. The Parties further note that they have scheduled a private mediation in April.

24

The Parties’ Requested Extension

The proposed updated case schedule is shown below.

25
26
27

Event

Current Deadlines

Provide initial disclosures under Rule 26(a)

[already complete]

Parties’ Proposal

28
-44858-5734-6044.2

STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEADLINES
Case No. 2:24-cv-00428-JCM-BNW

1
2

Last day to file motion to amend pleadings and add [already complete]
parties absent showing of good cause under Rule 16(b)

3

Close of Fact Discovery

4

Last day to serve initial expert reports on topics on June 30, 2025
which the party bears the burden of proof and materials
relied upon by experts

September 30, 2035

Last day to serve rebuttal experts on topics on which the July 28, 2025
party does not bear the burden of proof and materials
relied upon by rebuttal experts

October 27, 2025

November 21, 2025

9

Close of Expert
depositions)

10

Deadline to file dispositive motions

September 19, 2025

December 19, 2025

11

Deadline to file opposition to dispositive motions

October 10, 2025

January 23, 2026

12

Deadline to file replies to dispositive motions

October 24, 2025

February 6, 2026

Deadline to file Rule 702 (Daubert) motions

November 21, 2025

March 6, 2026
March 27, 2026

15

Deadline to file opposition to Rule 702 (Daubert) December 12, 2025
motions

16

Deadline to file replies to Rule 702 (Daubert) motions

April 3, 2026

5
6
7
8

13
14

Discovery

May 30, 2025

(including

expert August 22, 2025

December 19, 2025

August 29, 2025

17
18

///

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
-54858-5734-6044.2

STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEADLINES
Case No. 2:24-cv-00428-JCM-BNW

1
2
3

Deadline to file Pretrial Order if no dispositive motions October 20, 2025
are filed

January 23, 2026

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

4
5

Dated this 3rd day of March, 2025.

Dated this 3rd day of March, 2025.

6

/s/ Jessica M. Lujan
OLIVER J. PANCHERI, ESQ. (NBN 7476)
JESSICA M. LUJAN, ESQ. (NBN 14913)
SPENCER FANE LLP
300 S. 4th Street, Suite 1600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Tel.: [phone] / Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]

/s/ Ethan Glenn
PATRICK J. REILLY, ESQ. (NBN 6103)
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER
SCHRECK, LLP
100 North City Parkway, 16th Floor
Las Vegas, Nevada 89106
Tel.: [phone] / Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

MARK T. OAKES, ESQ. (pro hac vice)
ZACHARY P. MCHENRY, ESQ. (pro hac vice)
JEAN-PAUL CIARDULLO, ESQ. (pro hac vice) ETHAN GLENN, ESQ. (pro hac vice)
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
California Bar No. 284170
98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 1100
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
Austin, Texas 78701-4255
555 Flower Street, Suite 3300
Telephone: [phone]
Los Angeles, California 90071
Facsimile: [phone]
Tel: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Attorneys for Defendants

17
ORDER

18
19

The Court, having reviewed the above stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therefor,

20

hereby GRANTS the above stipulation, ADOPTS the proposed discovery deadlines as set forth herein,

21

ORDERS Plaintiffs to file either a notice or amended motions by April 18, 2025, and EXTENDS

22

Defendants’ deadlines to respond to Plaintiffs’ motions to compel (ECF Nos. 55 and 58) until May 2, 2025.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25
26

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27

DATED: March 4, 2025

28
-64858-5734-6044.2

STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEADLINES
Case No. 2:24-cv-00428-JCM-BNW