Dish Network Corporation v. Lohrengel et al, No. 2:2017cv01601 - Document 32 (D. Nev. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER granting 31 Stipulation to Stay Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 5/24/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Dish Network Corporation v. Lohrengel et al Doc. 32 Case 2:17-cv-01601-KJD-CWH Document 31 Filed 05/23/18 Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 Andrew F. Dixon Nevada Bar No. 8422 BOWLER DIXON & TWITCHELL LLP 3137 East Warm Springs Road, Suite 100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89120 Phone: (702) 436-4333 Fax: (702) 260-8983 andrew@nevadalegalcounsel.com Attorneys for Defendant/ Cross-claim Plaintiff Debra Jean Pompa 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 11 Las Vegas, Nevada 89120 BOWLER DIXON & TWITCHELL LLP 3137 E. Warm Springs Rd., Suite 100 10 DISH NETWORK CORPORATION, As Plan Administrator And On Behalf Of DISH NETWORK CORPORATION 401(K) PLAN, 12 JOINT STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY Plaintiff, 13 14 15 vs. (First Request) ROY LOHRENGEL, and DEBORAH POMPA 16 Defendants. 17 DEBRA JEAN POMPA, 18 Case No.: 2:17-cv-01601-KJD-CWH Cross-claim Plaintiff, 19 20 21 22 vs. ROY LOHRENGEL, Cross-claim Defendant. 23 24 25 26 27 28 Pursuant to LR IA 6-1 and LR II 7-1, Plaintiff, Dish Network Corporation, As Plan Administrator And On Behalf Of Dish Network Corporation 401(K) Plan (“Dish Network”), Defendant/Cross-claim Plaintiff/Cross-claim Defendant, Debra Jean Pompa (“Pompa”), and Defendant/Cross-claim Plaintiff/Cross-claim Defendant, Roy Lohrengel (“Lohrengel”), by and 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:17-cv-01601-KJD-CWH Document 31 Filed 05/23/18 Page 2 of 6 1 through their respective attorneys of record, hereby stipulate and agree pursuant to Local Rule 2 7-1 as follows: 3 Las Vegas, Nevada 89120 This matter is an interpleader action brought by Dish Network relating to 4 competing claims to a decedent’s retirement benefits. Pompa and Lohrengel have filed Cross- 5 Claims asserting claim to the retirement benefits. 6 BOWLER DIXON & TWITCHELL LLP 3137 E. Warm Springs Rd., Suite 100 1. 2. On May 10, 2018, Pompa filed her Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 30), on 7 Lohrengel’s Cross-Claim against her. Pompa alleges in her Motion for Summary Judgment 8 that Lohrengel’s Cross-Claim is barred by the statute of limitations. Pompa’s Motion for 9 Summary Judgment is potentially dispositive both of Lohrengel’s Cross-Claim and to the claim 10 in interpleader brought by Dish Network, because, if granted, it would resolve the competing 11 claims at issue in Pompa’s and Lohrengel’s respective Cross-Claims. 12 3. On May 10, 2018, the undersigned counsel for Pompa sent correspondence to 13 the undersigned counsel for Lohrengel advising her of the pending Motion for Summary 14 Judgment and requesting her stipulation that discovery be stayed pending the outcome and 15 requesting, if she would not agree, that she provide dates and times in which the parties could 16 meet and confer pursuant to LR II 26-7 prior to filing a motion for stay or for a protective order. 17 4. On May 14, 2018, the undersigned counsel for Pompa responded to the 18 correspondence from the undersigned counsel for Pompa, advising that she would not agree to 19 stay discovery and providing her availability for the meet and confer. 20 5. On May 17, 2018, the undersigned counsel for Pompa and Lohrengel held a 21 telephonic “meet and confer” LR II 26-7. During the telephonic meet and confer, the respective 22 undersigned counsel, in good faith, discussed at length their relative positions with respect to: 23 (a) the issues raised in the Motion for Summary Judgment; (b) whether discovery was 24 necessary to address the issue so raised; (c) the upcoming discovery set to occur, including the 25 deposition of Pompa, and the impending expert disclosure deadlines; (d) the need to yet obtain 26 medical records prior to expert disclosures and the pending delays in obtaining said records due 27 to procedural issues with the probate court; and (e) the anticipated time that will be required for 28 the court to consider and rule on the Motion for Summary Judgment. 2 Case 2:17-cv-01601-KJD-CWH Document 31 Filed 05/23/18 Page 3 of 6 1 thoroughly considering the issues, the undersigned counsel for Pompa and Lohrengel reached 3 an agreement that it is in the best interests of all parties to wait until the Motion for Summary 4 Judgment has been decided by the Court prior to continuing with any remaining discovery, 5 including, but not limited to, written discovery, depositions, and the retention and disclosure of 6 experts and expert reports, the cost of which could be substantial and which may be 7 unnecessary in the event the Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. 9 Las Vegas, Nevada 89120 After personally meeting and conferring on these issues in good faith, and 2 8 BOWLER DIXON & TWITCHELL LLP 3137 E. Warm Springs Rd., Suite 100 6. 7. The parties have been diligent thus far in working toward completing discovery and the following discovery has been completed to date: 10 • Dish Network served its initial disclosures on October 26, 2017. 11 • Pompa served her initial disclosures on November 15, 2017. 12 • Lohrengel served his initial disclosures on December 13, 2017. 13 • Lohrengel served his First Supplemental Disclosure of Witnesses and 14 15 Documents on February 13, 2018. • 16 17 2017. • 18 19 • • • 28 Lohrengel served his responses to Pompa’s First Set of Interrogatories on December 13, 2017. • 26 27 Pompa served here First Set of Requests for Production of Documents on Dish Network on November 17, 2017. 24 25 Pompa served her First Set of Interrogatories on Dish Network on November 17, 2017. 22 23 Pompa served her First Set of Requests for Production of Documents on Lohrengel on November 17, 2017. 20 21 Pompa served her First Set of Interrogatories on Lohrengel on November 17, Lohrengel served his responses to Pompa’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents on December 13, 2017. • Lohrengel served his Supplemental Responses to Pompa’s First Set of Interrogatories on January 18, 2018. 3 Case 2:17-cv-01601-KJD-CWH Document 31 Filed 05/23/18 Page 4 of 6 • 1 2 January 5, 2018. • 3 4 5 • Plaintiff served its First Supplemental Disclosures on December 13, 2018. 6 • Lohrengel’s counsel filed an Ex Parte Petition For Appointment of Special 7 Administrator of the decedent’s probate estate on January 26, 2018 in order 8 to enable her to obtain decedent’s medical records. Lohrengel’s counsel is 9 waiting for an order to be issued. • 11 Las Vegas, Nevada 89120 Plaintiff served its responses to Pompa’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents on January 5, 2018. 10 BOWLER DIXON & TWITCHELL LLP 3137 E. Warm Springs Rd., Suite 100 Plaintiff served its responses to Pompa’s First Set of Interrogatories on Lohrengel’s counsel has scheduled a Videotaped Deposition of Pompa on June 15, 2018, at 9:30 a.m. 12 8. Pompa and Lohrengel anticipate that the following discovery will need to be 13 completed, if it becomes necessary: limited document discovery, including obtaining medical 14 records of the decedent through the Nevada Probate Court; depositions of the parties and fact 15 witnesses; and the retention of experts and expert reports. Pompa and Lohrengel have been 16 working diligently on these matters and have yet to complete them, though the applicable 17 deadlines have not yet arrived. 18 9. Federal district courts have “wide discretion in controlling discovery.” Little v. 19 City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). In exercising this discretion, a district court 20 may stay discovery based on the filing of a motion that is “potentially dispositive of the entire 21 case.” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). See also Turner 22 Broadcasting Sys. V. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997) (holding that 23 “[w]hether to grant a stay is within the discretion of the Court . . . .”); Hafterlaw, LLC v. Neelu 24 Pal, M.D., 2014 WL 12585779 (D. Nev. 2014) (granting motion to stay discovery pending 25 ruling on a motion for summary judgment where the motion was potentially dispositive and no 26 discovery was necessary to resolve the motion). As such, it is within the Court’s power to grant 27 a stay of discovery at this time pending a ruling on the pending Motion for Summary Judgment. 28 /// 4 Case 2:17-cv-01601-KJD-CWH Document 31 Filed 05/23/18 Page 5 of 6 1 10. 2 remaining time-consuming and costly discovery, including retention of experts, because the 3 parties have agreed to a stay. Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the 4 federal rules of practice should be “construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and 5 inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” (Emphasis added). Thus, staying 6 discovery in this case is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Federal Rules of Civil 7 Procedure. If a stay is not granted, the parties will be required to engage in and incur the costs 8 of discovery which may not be necessary. Las Vegas, Nevada 89120 9 BOWLER DIXON & TWITCHELL LLP 3137 E. Warm Springs Rd., Suite 100 It would be burdensome and unfair to have the parties incur the expense of 11. In order to preserve Pompa’s, Lohrengel’s, and the Court’s resources, and to 10 promote judicial economy, Pompa and Lohrengel have agreed, subject to the Court’s approval, 11 to stay discovery until such time as it should become necessary in the event the pending Motion 12 for Summary Judgment is denied. Plaintiff Dish Network has no objection to the agreement 13 reached by Pompa and Lohrengel, subject to the Court’s approval, to stay discovery until such 14 time as it should become necessary in the event the pending Motion for Summary Judgment is 15 denied. 16 /// 17 /// 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 5 Case 2:17-cv-01601-KJD-CWH Document 31 Filed 05/23/18 Page 6 of 6 1 12. 2 agree that they will submit to the Court a revised discovery plan for the remaining discovery 3 within 14 days of any order denying the Motion for Summary Judgment. 4 DATED this 23rd day of May, 2018. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Las Vegas, Nevada 89120 BOWLER DIXON & TWITCHELL LLP 3137 E. Warm Springs Rd., Suite 100 In the event that Pompa’s Motion for Summary Judgment is denied, the parties / BOWLER DIXON & TWITCHELL LLP JACKSON LEWIS P.C. /s/ Andrew F. Dixon Andrew F. Dixon Nevada Bar No. 8422 3137 E. Warm Springs Road Suite 100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89120 Email: andrew@nevadalegalcounsel.com /s/ Deverie J. Christensen Deverie J. Christensen Nevada Bar No. 6596 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 Email: christensend@jacksonlewis.com Attorney for Defendant/Cross Defendant/ Cross Claimant Deborah Pompa Attorney for Plaintiffs DISH Network Corporation 12 13 LAW PRACTICE LTD. 14 15 /s /s/ Ann E. Kolber Ann E. Kolber 16 Nevada Bar No. 8144 Law Practice, Ltd. 17 5516 S. Fort Apache Road, Ste. 110 Las Vegas, NV 89148 18 Email: akolber@lawpracticeltd.com 19 20 Attorney for Defendant/Cross Claimant/ Cross Defendant Roy Lohrengel 21 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DATED: May 24, 2018 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.
