TPOV Enterprises 16, LLC v. Paris Las Vegas Operating Company, LLC, No. 2:2017cv00346 - Document 55 (D. Nev. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER granting 53 Stipulation to Extend Discovery Deadlines. Discovery due by 1/9/2019. Motions due by 2/8/2019. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 3/7/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 5/10/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
TPOV Enterprises 16, LLC v. Paris Las Vegas Operating Company, LLC 1 2 3 4 5 James J. Pisanelli, Esq., Bar No. 4027 JJP@pisanellibice.com Debra L. Spinelli, Esq., Bar No. 9695 DLS@pisanellibice.com M. Magali Mercera, Esq., Bar No. 11742 MMM@pisanellibice.com Brittnie T. Watkins, Esq., Bar No. 13612 BTW@pisanellibice.com PISANELLI BICE PLLC 7 400 South 7th Street, Suite 300 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Telephone: 702.214.2100 Facsimile: 702.214.2101 8 Attorneys for Paris Las Vegas Operating Company, LLC 6 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 11 PISANELLI BICE PLLC 400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300 LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101 Doc. 55 12 TPOV ENTERPRISES 16, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff, 13 vs. 14 PARIS LAS VEGAS OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 CASE NO. 2:17-cv-00346-JCM-VCF STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY (Third Request) Defendant. PARIS LAS VEGAS OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, vs. Counterclaimant. TPOV ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, TPOV ENTERPRISES 16, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, ROWEN SEIBEL, an individual. Counter-defendants. 25 26 Plaintiff/Counterdefendants TPOV Enterprises 16, LLC ("TPOV 16"), TPOV Enterprises, 27 LLC ("TPOV"), and Rowen Seibel ("Seibel") and Defendant/Counterclaimant Paris Las Vegas 28 Operating Company, LLC ("Paris") by and through their undersigned counsel of record, request an 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 order modifying the parties' Joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order, (ECF No. 17), as amended 2 November 3, 2017 (ECF No. 47). This is the third stipulation to extend discovery. In compliance 3 with LR IA 6-1 and LR 26-4, the parties submit as follows: 4 1. 5 6 7 8 9 10 PISANELLI BICE PLLC 400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300 LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 STATEMENT OF DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO DATE. The parties both served their initial disclosures on June 12, 2017. Paris served its first supplemental disclosures on June 14, 2017. TPOV 16 served its first supplemental disclosures on June 20, 2017. On September 22, 2017, the parties exchanged proposed search terms for electronic discovery. On October 4, 2017, the parties met and conferred on proposed search terms. On October 12, 2017, the parties exchanged revised search terms for electronic discovery. On October 12, 2017, the parties met and conferred on revisions to the proposed search terms. On October 23, 2017, TPOV 16 provided further revisions to search terms for electronic discovery. On October 31, 2017, Paris represented to TPOV 16 that Paris would be proceeding 18 with running TPOV 16’s search terms for electronic discovery and would present 19 preliminary results to TPOV 16 in the near future. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On November 9, 2017 TPOV 16 served its First Set of Request for Production of Documents on Paris. On December 4, 2017 TPOV 16 served its First Set of Interrogatories on Paris. On December 13, 2017, Paris served its Reponses to TPOV 16's First Set of Request for Production of Documents. On January 9, 2017, Paris served its Responses to TPOV 16's First Set of Interrogatories On January 16, 2018, TPOV 16 issued a subpoena to third-party Trisha Thompson. On January 16, 2018, TPOV 16 issued a subpoena to third-party Markita Thompson. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PISANELLI BICE PLLC 400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300 LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On February 1, 2018, Trisha Thompson served her objections to TPOV 16's subpoena. On February 1, 2018, Markita Thompson served her objections to TPOV 16's subpoena. On February 9, 2018, Paris requested additional revisions to the proposed search terms due to the volume of results. On February 12, 2018, TPOV 16 provided further revisions to search terms for electronic discovery. On February 22, 2018, Paris proposed categories of documents to respond to TPOV 16's discovery requests. On February 28, 2018, Paris served its First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Seibel. On February 28, 2018, Paris served its First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to TPOV. On February 28, 2018, Paris served its First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to TPOV 16. On March 2, 2018, TPOV 16 agreed to Paris' proposed categories of documents to respond to TPOV 16's discovery requests. On April 3, 2018, TPOV served its Response to Paris' First Set of Requests for Production of Documents. On April 3, 2018, TPOV 16 served its Response to Paris' First Set of Requests for Production of Documents. On April 3, 2018, Seibel served his Response to Paris' First Set of Requests for Production of Documents. On April 4, 2018, TPOV 16 requested to provide categories of documents to respond to Paris' discovery requests. On April 4, 2018, Paris responded to TPOV 16's request regarding proposed categories of documents to respond to Paris' discovery requests. 3 1 2 3 4 5 On May 4, 2018, Paris served its second supplemental disclosures. On May 7, 2018, Paris served its First Supplemental Responses to TPOV 16's First Set of Interrogatories. 2. 6 PISANELLI BICE PLLC 400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300 LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101 On April 6, 2018, TPOV and Seibel served their first production of documents. SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF DISCOVERY THAT REMAINS TO BE COMPLETED. 7 The parties anticipate completing the production of documents, propounding and 8 responding to additional requests for production, interrogatories, and requests for admissions, 9 conducting depositions, engaging in expert discovery, and conducting third-party document and 10 deposition discovery. Additionally, the parties are at an impasse on certain requests for discovery 11 and anticipate motion practice to resolve the dispute. 12 3. 13 DISCOVERY REMAINING CANNOT BE COMPLETED WITHIN THE TIME LIMITS SET BY THE DISCOVERY PLAN.1 14 Initially, the parties have agreed to extend the discovery cut-off deadline because a stay 15 order was in place from the outset of the action. (ECF No. 23.) In particular, this Court's order 16 provided for a stay of all discovery except initial disclosures and jurisdictional discovery. The stay 17 was lifted on July 5, 2017, when the Court ruled on Paris' Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 30.) Since 18 the stay was lifted, the parties entered into a Stipulated Protocol Governing Production of 19 Electronically Stored Informed (ESI) and a Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and Protective 20 Order. (See ECF No. 26 and ECF No. 29.) Additionally, the parties have further exchanged search 21 terms, begun rolling productions of supplemental documents, served written discovery, and begun 22 discussing depositions. Through these discussions, the parties have determined that more time than 23 originally anticipated is necessary to complete discovery. The current July 9, 2018 discovery cut- 24 off does not provide sufficient time for the parties to engage in and complete discovery. An 25 26 27 28 1 On April 4, 2018, Paris filed a Motion to Stay this action pending resolution of a parallel state court action. (ECF No. 49.) This stipulation is independent of and unrelated to the Motion to Stay as the parties intend continue conducting discovery until the Court issues a decision on that Motion. 4 1 extension of the discovery cut-off date to January 9, 2019 will provide both parties with the time 2 needed to conduct and complete discovery. 3 4. 4 5 PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING REMAINING DISCOVERY. The parties have agreed to a discovery cut-off date of January 9, 2019 with corresponding deadlines as follows: 6 Proposed Deadline Date 7 Discovery Cut-off July 9, 2018 January 9, 2019 8 Amend Pleadings/Add Parties Expert Disclosures April 10, 2018 No Change May 10, 2018 November 13, 2018 10 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures June 11, 2018 December 11, 2018 11 Dispositive Motions August 8, 2018 February 8, 2019 12 Interim Status Report May 10, 2018 November 13, 2018 Pre-Trial Order September 7, 2018 March 7, 2019 9 PISANELLI BICE PLLC 400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300 LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101 Current Deadline Date 13 14 If dispositive motions are filed, the joint pretrial order shall be due thirty (30) days from the 15 entry of the court's rulings on the motions or by further order of the court. See LR 26-1(b)(5). 16 5. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO EXTEND TIME TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY. 17 A stipulation to extend discovery deadlines must be supported by a showing of good cause. 18 LR 26-4; Branch Banking & Tr. Co. v. D.M.S.I., LLC, 871 F.3d 751, 764 (9th Cir. 2017). "The 19 good cause inquiry focuses primarily on the [parties'] diligence." Derosa v. Blood Sys., Inc., No. 20 2:13-CV-0137-JCM-NJK, 2013 WL 3975764, at *1 (D. Nev. Aug. 1, 2013) (citation omitted). If, 21 despite the parties' diligence, discovery cannot reasonably be completed within the deadlines, good 22 cause to extend discovery exists. Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 23 2002). Where an extension is requested less than twenty-one (21) days before expiration of a 24 deadline, a showing of excusable neglect must be made. LR 26-4; Derosa, 2013 WL 3975764, at 25 *1. "[W]hether neglect is excusable is an equitable [question] that depends on at least four factors: 26 (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact 27 on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith." 28 If dispositive motions are filed, the deadline for filing the joint pretrial order will be suspended until 30 days after decision on the dispositive motions or further court order. 5 PISANELLI BICE PLLC 400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300 LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101 1 Bateman v. U.S. Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1223–24 (9th Cir. 2000); Derosa, 2013 WL 3975764, 2 at *1 (applying Rule 60(b)(1)'s definition of excusable neglect to LR 26-4). 3 The parties have been diligent in pursuing discovery. As stated above, a stay order 4 prohibited the parties from doing all but producing initial disclosures and engaging in jurisdictional 5 discovery. Since the stay was lifted and the previous scheduling order was entered, the parties have 6 agreed to the form of production for ESI, refined specific search terms in furtherance of ESI 7 production, served thousands of pages of documents, propounded to and responded to written 8 discovery, and engaged in meet and confers regarding certain discovery disputes. Despite the 9 diligence of all parties, the parties have determined that more time than originally anticipated is 10 necessary for discovery. Indeed, despite the parties' diligence, discovery cannot reasonably be 11 completed within the deadlines, and good cause to extend discovery deadlines exists. 12 Any neglect assigned to the parties is excusable. First, there is no danger of prejudice. Both 13 parties agree that it is in their best interests to extend discovery deadlines. Second, the length of 14 the delay will not substantively impact the proceedings as the parties have been and continue to 15 actively conduct discovery. Third, the parties' delay in submitting the stipulation is excusable. The 16 parties have been engaged in motion practice in a related case pending before the Eighth Judicial 17 District Court, including the briefing of a motion to dismiss and Paris and its related parties 18 opposing multiple motions to dismiss in that proceeding, which were resolved on May 1, 2018. 19 Finally, the parties have acted in good faith. The parties met and conferred regarding an extension 20 to the deadlines and intended to submit a stipulation following the resolution of the motions being 21 addressed in the Eighth Judicial District Court. 22 /// 23 /// 24 25 26 27 28 6 1 This proposed Stipulation and Order to extend deadlines for discovery is made in good faith, 2 with good cause, and not for purposes of unduly delaying discovery or trial. In light of the stay 3 order, the voluminous number of documents to be reviewed as a result of the exchanged search 4 terms, and the simultaneous motion practice in related proceedings, extension of the discovery 5 deadlines is warranted. Therefore, the parties respectfully request that this Court grant the requested 6 discovery extension. 7 DATED this 10th day of May 2018. DATED this 10th day of May 2018. 8 PISANELLI BICE PLLC MCNUTT LAW FIRM, P.C. By: By: 9 10 PISANELLI BICE PLLC 400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300 LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101 11 12 13 14 /s M. Magali Mercera James J. Pisanelli, Esq., Bar No. 4027 Debra L. Spinelli, Esq., Bar No. 9695 M. Magali Mercera, Esq., Bar No. 11742 Brittnie T. Watkins, Esq., Bar No. 13612 400 South 7th Street, Suite 300 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Attorneys for Paris Las Vegas Operating Company, LLC 15 /s/ Dan McNutt Dan McNutt, Esq., Bar No. 7815 Matthew Wolf, Esq., Bar No. 10801 625 S. 8th Street Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 CERTILMAN BALIN ADLER & HYMAN, LLP By: /s/ Paul Sweeney Paul Sweeney, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice) 90 Merrick Avenue, 9th Floor East Meadow, NY 11544 16 17 Attorneys for TPOV Enterprises 16, LLC, TPOV Enterprises, LLC, and Rowen Seibel 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER IT IS SO ORDERED. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE May 10, 2018 DATED: 25 26 27 28 7
]]>
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.
