Cass, Inc. v. Production Pattern and Foundry Co., Inc.

Filing 61

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS - Motion Hearing held on 6/23/2015 before Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb. Crtrm Administrator: Katie Lynn Ogden; Pla Counsel: Anna Le May and Ruben Castellon (Telephonically); Def Counsel: Kara Marie Hayes (Telephonically); FTR #: 9:05:39 a.m. - 9:40:40 a.m.; Time of Hearing: 9:00 a.m.; Courtroom: 2. Defendant's 56 Motion for Stay of Depositions, to Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines Pending Decision on Motion to Dismi ss, and for Limitation of Discovery Based Upon FRCP 26(b)(2)(c) [Third Request] is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. The court will not stay the depositions of Ray Switzer and Nicholas Drakos. Furthermore, the court will not qu ash the subpoena issued to CALM. The discovery deadlines are modified as follows: Discovery Cut-Off: 9/30/2015; Dispositive Motions: 10/30/2015; Reubttal Expert Reports: 7/31/2015; and Joint Pretrial Order: 11/30/2015. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 11/30/2015. IT IS SO ORDERED. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
CASS INC.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
PRODUCTION PATTERN AND
)
FOUNDRY CO., INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )

3:13-cv-00701-LRH-WGC
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
June 23, 2015

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE WILLIAM G. COBB, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEPUTY CLERK:

Katie Lynn Ogden

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF:

REPORTER:

FTR

Anna Le May, Esq. and Ruben Castellon, Esq. (Telephonically)

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT:

Kara Marie Hayes, Esq. (Telephonically)

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS: Motion Hearing
The court holds today’s hearing to address “Defendant’s Motion for Stay of Depositions, to
Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines Pending Decision on Motion to Dismiss, and for Limitation of
Discovery Based Upon FRCP 26(b)(2)(C) [Third Request]” (Doc. # 56). Plaintiff filed its opposition
to Defendant’s motion (Doc. # 60).
The court first inquires what steps were taken by Plaintiff’s counsel to comply with the “meet
and confer” requirements of LR 26-7. Plaintiff’s counsel Kara Hayes advises the court that an email
was exchanged with opposing counsel to address CASS, Inc., position regarding discovery. The
court expresses its displeasure at the apparent lack of a sincere effort to informally resolve a
discovery dispute before engaging in motion practice with the court.
The court advises counsel that stays of discovery because of a pending motion to dismiss are
generally disfavored. Nevertheless, the court hears argument with regard to Plaintiff’s motion
(Doc. # 56).
After hearing from counsel, the court states it will not stay the depositions of Ray Switzer
and Nicholas Drakos. Furthermore, the court will not quash the subpoena issued by CASS to

1

Minutes of Proceedings
3:13-cv-00701-LRH-WGC
June 23, 2015
Custom Alloy Light Metals, Inc. (“CALM”), as those records may be relevant to the causes of action
which have survived the motions to dismiss.
The court, however, does find it appropriate to extend the discovery deadlines. The discovery
deadlines are revised as follows:
•

Discovery Cut-Off: Wednesday, September 30, 2015;

•

Rebuttal Expert Reports: Friday, July 31, 2015;

•

Dispositive Motion(s): Friday, October 30, 2015; and

•

Joint Pretrial Order: Monday, November 30, 2015, unless, in the event
dispositive motions are filed, the date for filing the joint pretrial order shall
be suspended until thirty (30) days after decision of the dispositive motions
or further order of the court.

Therefore, “Defendant’s Motion for Stay of Depositions, to Extend Scheduling Order
Deadlines Pending Decision on Motion to Dismiss, and for Limitation of Discovery Based Upon
FRCP 26(b)(2)(C) [Third Request]” (Doc. # 56) is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part,
consistent with the court’s findings.
The court encourages counsel to consult with one another regarding the dates of the
upcoming depositions and the production of the CALM materials.
Concluding today’s discussion, the court requests that counsel contact Ms. Ogden should
counsel find that the anticipated ruling by District Judge Larry R. Hicks on “Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint” (Doc. # 42) will impact discovery in this matter.
There being no additional matters to address at this time, court adjourns at 9:40 a.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK
By:

2

/s/
Katie Lynn Ogden, Deputy Clerk