Henderson v. Hughes et al, No. 2:2016cv01837 - Document 243 (D. Nev. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER granting 242 Motion to Extend Time; Discovery due by 12/27/2018. Motions due by 1/28/2019. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 2/27/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 7/3/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Henderson v. Hughes et al Doc. 243 Stephen K. Christiansen (Nev. Bar No. 11081) 311 S. State, Ste. 250 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone: 801.716.7016 Facsimile: 801.716.7017 steve@skclawfirm.com Attorney for Plaintiff IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA, SOUTHERN DIVISION ELMA HENDERSON, an individual, Plaintiff, vs. THOMAS ROBERT HUGHES a/k/a T.R. HUGHES a/k/a BOB HUGHES, individually and doing business as certain entities named herein and as putative trustee of NORTHSTAR GLOBAL BT and the ODIN STATUTORY TRUST; LAKE W HOLDINGS LLC; WESTERN GOLD COMPANY, LLC; COLINDO MINERALS, LLC; COLINDO, LTD.; FRANK A. FINNERTY, as putative trustee of the COLINDO TRUST and as putative trustee of the BOB CREEK TRUST; BCT HOLDINGS LLC; COLTEN METALS LLC; MISSION MINING COMPANY; CHERYL BETH HUGHES; CBH CONSULTING LLC; and DOES 1-100, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF SCHEDULING ORDER DATES (Fifth Request) Case No. 2:16-cv-01837-JAD-CWH Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 Pursuant to Local Rules IA 6-1 and 26-4, plaintiff Elma Henderson moves the Court for a 120-day extension of current deadlines set forth in the Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling 3 Order (ECF No. 80) as extended by the Order of November 30, 2017 (ECF No. 221). This is the 4 5 fifth such request, the Court having previously granted three extensions of 120 days, 90 days, 6 and 90 days respectively (ECF Nos. 154, 202, 221, 234). The grounds are that defendant T.R. 7 Hughes has just responded to discovery as of June 1, 2018, pursuant to Court order. Plaintiff 8 needs time to absorb the impact of the response, which notably includes Mr. Hughes invoking 9 10 the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Prior extensions were granted when, 11 after an extended period, the pleadings were not yet closed, the Court had just ruled on 12 outstanding motions, discovery and discovery motions remained to be completed, and the parties 13 had devoted extensive time to settlement discussions. 14 After threshold motions following the filing of the original complaint in August 2016, 15 16 plaintiff filed an amended complaint in January 2017 clarifying allegations (for the defendants’ 17 benefit) and adding parties. Following motion practice directed to the amended complaint, the 18 Court granted leave to the plaintiff to file a second amended complaint (ECF No. 153), which 19 she did on May 19, 2017 (ECF No. 155). The defendants filed a series of responsive motions, 20 most of which the Court struck and which the defendants then failed to re-file within the time 21 22 allowed by the Court. Ancillary motions related to the defendants’ ability to file out of time or to 23 seek leave to set aside defaults were ruled upon by the Court on January 26, 2018. (ECF No. 24 225.) The ruling denied defendant Hughes’ motion to dismiss and required him to file an 25 Answer. In a separate order, the Court also allowed service by publication on the defendant 26 27 trusts, whose Answer was due by February 28, 2018. (ECF No. 220.) 28 2 1 2 Meanwhile, plaintiff served comprehensive written discovery requests on Mr. Hughes, which were due in mid-September 2017, via his email address of record with the Court. He did 3 not timely respond. Instead, he claimed not to have received the requests. Plaintiff’s counsel 4 5 gave him an additional 30 days to respond. His responses at that time did not comply with the 6 Court’s rules, consisted largely of unmeritorious objections to the merits of the case, and failed 7 to provide relevant information or any documents. Following a meet-and-confer session with 8 plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Hughes promised to remedy the numerous deficiencies by November 13, 9 10 2017. That date came and went without compliance, and he declined to respond to follow-up 11 communications regarding the same. Following a motion to the Court regarding this recalcitrant 12 behavior in discovery, the Court granted Mr. Hughes until June 1, 2018, to provide discovery 13 responses that complied with the rules. (ECF No. 241.) Mr. Hughes responded on that date by 14 “taking the Fifth.” 15 16 Because discovery was delayed by the principal defendant’s obstructive failure to 17 cooperate, followed by settlement negotiations, and because the plaintiff has just now received 18 discovery responses from the principal defendant with a further refusal to answer, the current 19 timeline needs to be extended so that plaintiff may assess and address the current status of 20 discovery. Meanwhile, expert disclosures are due at the end of this month, with the plaintiff 21 22 needing additional factual information from discovery to be able to identify and disclose 23 appropriate experts. 24 Pursuant to Local Rule 26-4, Plaintiff provides the following information relative to the 25 status of discovery and the proposed extension: 26 27 28 (a) A statement specifying the discovery completed: To date, those parties who have answered the complaint and not defaulted have exchanged Initial Disclosures in 3 1 2 accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) and this Court’s Scheduling Order as amended, and the Plaintiff has served written discovery and taken the deposition of 3 defendant Cheryl Hughes and a short deposition of a third party. Defendant T.R. 4 5 Hughes has responded in discovery with responses deemed deficient by the Court, 6 with an order to respond pursuant to the rules. In further response, Mr. Hughes 7 invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. 8 (b) A specific description of the discovery that remains to be completed: Plaintiff needs 9 10 time to assess whether additional discovery may be taken in light of Mr. Hughes’ 11 default and/or whether any appropriate motions should be brought to the Court. All 12 other defendants are in default. 13 (c) The reason why the deadline was not satisfied or the remaining discovery was not 14 completed within the time limits set by the discovery plan: The commencement of 15 16 discovery was originally continued to allow all parties to be fully in the case. The 17 case involves claims of alter ego and joint liability between defendant T.R. Hughes 18 and his companies. The interrelatedness of the companies calls for discovery of Mr. 19 Hughes and relevant company information simultaneously. Mr. Hughes represents 20 that he is the person with information regarding the same, yet he has refused to 21 22 provide that information in discovery. Plaintiff has proceeded with such discovery as 23 she can under the circumstances while attempting to move the case forward in light of 24 the defendants’ numerous procedural motions and obstructionist approach to 25 discovery. The parties have engaged in extensive settlement negotiations in an 26 27 attempt to narrow or eliminate issues to be litigated. 28 4 1 2 (d) A proposed schedule for completing all remaining discovery: For the reasons stated above, plaintiff requests that the current amended scheduling order (ECF No. 234) be 3 amended to reflect the following deadlines, which represent a 120-day extension from 4 5 the current deadlines: 6 (1) Expert disclosures: October 25, 2018. 7 (2) Rebuttal expert disclosures: November 23, 2018. 8 (3) Pleading amendment: November 28, 2018 9 10 (4) Discovery deadline: December 27, 2018. 11 (5) Dispositive motions: January 28, 2019. 12 (6) Joint Pretrial Order: February 27, 2019. 13 For the reasons set forth above, good cause exists for the granting of this motion. This 14 request is respectfully submitted. 15 16 17 DATED this 5th day of June, 2018. STEPHEN K. CHRISTIANSEN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 18 19 By: 20 /s/ Stephen K. Christiansen Stephen K. Christiansen Attorney for Plaintiff 21 22 23 24 July 3, 2018 25 26 27 28 5 1 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 5th day of June, 2018, I caused a true and correct copy of the 3 within and foregoing pleading to be served electronically upon all counsel and parties of record 4 5 via the Court’s CM/ECF system. 6 7 /s/ Stephen K. Christiansen 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
