Sierra Development Company v. Chartwell Advisory Group Ltd.

Filing 502

ORDER - The dispositive motions deadline is extended to September 23, 2016. However, the court will not extend the discovery deadlines in this case. See order for further detail concerning privilege log deadline of August 10, 2016. (Dispositive Motions due by 9/23/2016.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke on 8/5/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DN)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

***

8
9

SIERRA DEVELOPMENT CO. dba CLUB
CAL NEVA,

ORDER
Plaintiff,

10
11
12

v.
CHARTWELL ADVISORY GROUP, LTD.,
Defendant.

13
14

Case No. 3:13-CV-0602-RTB (VPC)

AND RELATED CLAIMS.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

On August 5, 2016, this District Court held a status conference in this case. The Court
set the joint pretrial conference for November 18, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. and set the trial for January
24, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. The discovery deadline for non-expert evidence was July 28, 2016, and the
deadline for expert evidence was August 4, 2016. (ECF No. 455). The dispositive motions
deadline is currently August 22, 2016. Id.
The District Court deferred to this court with respect to requested extensions of nonexpert discovery and the dispositive motions deadline. This court will extend the dispositive
motions deadline to September 23, 2016. However, the court will not extend the discovery
deadlines in this case.
As outlined in its August 3, 2016 order, there are four privilege log disputes pending
before this court (ECF No. 497). Each is discussed in turn.

1

A.

The Privilege Logs

2

1.

The John Bartlett Privilege Log

3

The parties have submitted points and authorities regarding Mr. Bartlett’s privilege log,

4

and Mr. Bartlett submitted certain court-ordered documents for the court’s in camera review.

5

The court will issue its order in due course.

6

2.

7

Although this privilege log is subject to a dispute, nothing has been submitted to the court

8

for in camera review. If this document production remains in dispute, the privilege log shall be

9

submitted to the court for in camera review no later than Wednesday, August 10, 2016, by 5:00

10

The Reamdata Privilege Log

p.m. Pacific Time.

11

3.

The Chartwell Privilege Log

12

If disputes remain regarding privilege as to this document production, the privilege log

13

shall be submitted to the court for in camera review no later than Wednesday, August 10, 2016,

14

by 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time.

15

4.

The Morrison Foerster Privilege Log

16

Mr. Bergin of Morrison Foerster appeared telephonically at the July 22, 2016 case

17

management conference and reported that additional documents and the privilege log would be

18

produced by Monday, July 25, 2016 (ECF No. 482). That deadline passed eleven days ago, and

19

the court has received nothing. Morrison Foerster shall produce its privilege log no later than

20

Wednesday, August 10, 2016, by 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time.

21

B.

Privilege Log Instructions

22

If the privilege logs identified above are not produced on August 10, 2016, the privilege

23

will be deemed waived as to all documents deemed privileged, and they shall be produced no

24

later than Friday, August 12, 2016, 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time.

25
26
27
28

If privilege logs are submitted for in camera review, all counsel – including counsel for
third parties – are ordered as follows:
1.

If there are identical emails, documents or communications that appear
multiple times, state as much so that the court is not burdened by

-2-

reviewing copies of the same document multiple times.

1
2

2.

Identify senders and recipients of documents or communications in a

3

common-sense way that will assist the court in understanding who the

4

individuals are.

5

3.

Describe in as much detail as possible the nature of the communication at
issue.

6
7

4.

Describe in detail the exact nature of the privilege being asserted and why.

8

5.

Organize documents in a common-sense fashion. For example, do not
provide the documents in bates-numbered order in the binder and then ask

9

the court to consider the documents in reverse order.

10
11

6.

log to chambers.

12
13

If parties color-code the privilege log, deliver the color-coded privilege

7.

If it will be helpful to the court, counsel have leave to provide an

14

introductory explanation about the privilege log, its contents, any specific

15

explanation about which legal theory is the basis of the privilege, i.e.,

16

attorney-client, common interest doctrine, functional equivalent doctrine,

17

work product doctrine.

18

The parties shall have one opportunity to submit a privilege log that comports with these

19

instructions. If the privilege log does not, the court will deem the privilege waived and order the

20

documents produced forthwith.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

DATED: August 5, 2016.

23
24

____________________________________
VALERIE P. COOKE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28

-3-