Platt v. National General Insurance Company, No. 2:2018cv00067 - Document 7 (D. Nev. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER granting 6 Stipulation; Discovery due by 9/10/2018. Motions due by 10/10/2018. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 11/12/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 5/1/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Platt v. National General Insurance Company Doc. 7 Case 2:18-cv-00067-RFB-CWH Document 6 Filed 04/27/18 Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 THOMAS E. WINNER Nevada Bar No. 5168 VIRGINIA T. TOMOVA Nevada Bar No. 12504 ATKIN WINNER & SHERROD 1117 South Rancho Drive Las Vegas, Nevada 89102 Phone (702) 243-7000 Facsimile (702) 243-7059 twinner@awslawyers.com vtomova@awslawyers.com Attorneys for Defendant National General Insurance Company 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 10 EARNEST PLATT, 11 Plaintiff, CASE NO.: 2:18-cv-00067 -RFB-CWH STIPULATED DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER 12 vs. 13 NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, DOES I-X, and ROE CORPORATIONS I-X, inclusive, 14 In compliance with Local Rule 26.1 Defendants. 15 16 Defendant, NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, by and through their 17 attorneys of record, Thomas E. Winner and Virginia T. Tomova of ATKIN WINNER & SHERROD, 18 and Plaintiff, EARNEST PLATT, by and through his counsel, Travis Dunsmoor of the RICHARD 19 HARRIS LAW FIRM, respectfully submit the following Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling 20 Order, pursuant to local rule 26.1(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). PROPOSED SCHEDULE 21 22 23 24 1. Rule 26(f) Conference: This matter was initially filed in the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County, Nevada by the Plaintiff Earnest Platt on November 15, 2017. The case was styled Earnest Platt vs. National General Insurance Company, Does I-X, and Roe Corporations I- 25 X, inclusive, Case No. A-17-764747-C. The case was properly removed on January 11, 2018. 26 27 28 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), the parties held the initial discovery conference on March 21, 2018. Page 1 of 6 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:18-cv-00067-RFB-CWH Document 6 Filed 04/27/18 Page 2 of 6 2. 1 2 3 4 Initial Disclosures: No changes are necessary in the form or requirement for the disclosures under Fed.R.Civ.P.26(a). Plaintiff has not made his Initial List of Witnesses and Documents disclosure under Local Rule 26.1. Defendant made its Initial List of Witnesses and Documents disclosure under Local Rule 26.1 on or about March 22, 2018. 5 3. 6 7 Areas of Discovery: The parties need to conduct discovery regarding (a) the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint and (b) Defendant’s defenses. 4. 8 9 Discovery Plan: The Parties propose the following discovery plan: a. Discovery Cut-off Date(s): L.R. 26(e)(1) provides that “unless the court 10 orders otherwise, discovery periods longer than 180 days from the date the first defendant answers 11 or appears will require special scheduling review.” The parties agree that there is no need for a 12 special scheduling review. The parties further agree that discovery will be conducted within 180 13 14 days from the date of the filing of Defendant’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint, which was filed 15 on or about March 13, 2018. Therefore, all discovery shall be completed no later than September 16 10, 2018. 17 18 19 b. Amending Pleadings or Adding Parties: Unless otherwise stated herein or ordered by the Court, the date for filing motions to amend the pleadings or to add parties shall not be later than ninety (90) days prior to the discovery cut-off date. Therefore, any such motion 20 shall be filed no later than June 12, 2018. 21 c. 22 Disclosure of Expert Witnesses: In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 26(a)(2) and L.R. 26-1(3), disclosures identifying experts shall be made sixty (60) days prior to 24 discovery cut-off date. Therefore, initial expert disclosures shall be made no later than July 12, 25 2018. Disclosures identifying rebuttal experts shall be made within thirty (30) days after the initial 26 27 expert disclosures. Therefore, rebuttal expert disclosures shall be made no later than August 13, 2018. 28 Page 2 of 6 Case 2:18-cv-00067-RFB-CWH Document 6 Filed 04/27/18 Page 3 of 6 d. 1 2 3 4 Interim Status Report: Sixty (60) days prior to the close of discovery, the parties shall file an Interim Status Report, as required by LR 26-3, stating the time estimated for trial, three alternative dates for trial and whether trial will be proceeding or affected by substantive motions. Therefore, the Interim Status Report shall be filed no later than July 12, 2018. 5 e. 6 7 8 9 10 11 Dispositive Motions: Dispositive motions must be filed within thirty (30) days after the close of discovery. Therefore, such motions shall be filed no later than October 10, 2018. f. Pre-Trial Order: The parties will prepare a Joint Pre-Trial Order on or before November 12, 2018, which is no more than thirty (30) days after the date set for filing dispositive motions in the case. This deadline will be suspended if dispositive motions are timely 12 filed until thirty (30) days after the decision of the dispositive motions or until further order by the 13 14 15 16 Court. The disclosure required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) and objections thereto, shall be made in the pre-trial order. g. Pre-Trial Disclosures: L.R. 26-1(6) requires that pre-trial disclosures, 17 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3), and any objections thereto shall be included in the Pre-Trial 18 Order. However, the parties wish to deviate from that rule to permit a reasonable opportunity to 19 evaluate a party’s pre-trial disclosures and make well-reasoned objections thereto. The parties do 20 not feel they can adequately do so under the modified schedule of L.R. 26-1(6). Therefore, the 21 22 parties propose following the schedule in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3)(B) which requires the parties to 23 make pre-trial disclosures not later than thirty (30) days before trial and submit any objections 24 thereto not later than fourteen (14) days before trial. 25 26 27 h. Court Conference: If the Court has questions regarding the dates proposed by the parties, the parties request a conference with the Court before entry of the Scheduling Order. If the Court does not have questions, the parties do not request a conference with the Court. 28 Page 3 of 6 Case 2:18-cv-00067-RFB-CWH Document 6 Filed 04/27/18 Page 4 of 6 1 5. Other orders that should be entered by the Court under Rule 26(c) or under Rules 16(b) and (c): 2 3 4 5 The parties are not aware at this time of any other orders that should be entered by the Court under Rule 26(c) or Rules 16(b) and (c). 6. E-discovery. The parties agree that disclosure and discovery of electronically 6 stored information should be produced in Portable Document Format (Adobe Acrobat) (“PDF 7 Format”) to allow for proper and consistent Bates numbering. The PDF documents are also to be 8 produced in a recognize text Optical Character Recognition (‘OCR”) format. If in good faith a 9 10 11 12 party questions the authenticity of an electronically stored document, or for other good faith reason, the party may request the PDF format document to be produced in its native format. 7. Claw Back Agreement. In the event that any Party (the “Discloser”) produces 13 material or documents without intending to waive a claim of privilege or confidentiality, the 14 Discloser does not waive any claim of privilege or confidentiality if, within a reasonable amount 15 16 of time after the Discloser actually discovers that such material or documents were produced, the Discloser notifies all other Parties (the “Recipient(s)”) of the inadvertent disclosure of privileged 17 18 or confidential items, identifying the material or documents produced and stating the privilege or 19 confidentiality provision asserted. Mere failure to diligently screen documents before producing 20 them does not waive a claim of privilege or confidentiality. 21 If the Discloser asserts that it inadvertently produced privileged or confidential items in 22 accordance with this Claw Back Agreement, the Recipient(s) must return the specified material or 23 documents and any copies within ten days of the notification. The Recipient(s) must further 24 permanently destroy any electronic copies of such specified material or documents and affirm in 25 26 writing to counsel for the Discloser of such destruction. 27 28 Page 4 of 6 Case 2:18-cv-00067-RFB-CWH Document 6 Filed 04/27/18 Page 5 of 6 1 In the event that the Recipient(s) contends the documents are not subject to privilege or 2 confidentiality as asserted by the Discloser in accordance with this Claw Back Agreement, the 3 4 Recipient(s) may, following the return and destruction described in Paragraph 2 of this Agreement, challenge the privilege claim through a Motion to Compel or other pleading with the District Court 5 6 7 in which the Litigation is currently pending. The Parties agree that any review of items by the judge shall be an in-camera review. 8 Should the Recipient(s) not challenge the Discloser’s claim of privilege or confidentiality 9 or should the presiding judge determine that the documents are in fact subject to privilege or 10 confidentiality, the documents, or information contained therein or derived therefrom, may not be 11 used in the Litigation or against the Discloser in any future litigation or arbitration brought by the 12 Recipient(s). Nothing contained within this Claw Back Agreement shall be deemed to waive any 13 14 objection that any Party may wish to assert under applicable state or federal law. 15 If the Recipient challenges the privilege or confidentiality of the inadvertently disclosed 16 documents, and prevails on the motion to compel, the Recipient will be entitled to recover 17 reasonable attorney’s fees for bringing the motion, to be determined by the Court. 18 8. 19 Alternative Dispute Resolution: Pursuant to Local Rule 26-1 (b)(7), the parties certify that they met and conferred about 20 the possibility of using alternative dispute-resolution processes including mediation, arbitration 21 22 and if applicable, early neutral evaluation. 23 9. 24 The parties are not consenting to trial by a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and 25 26 27 28 Alternative Forms of Case Disposition: Fed. R. Civ. P. 73 and the use of the Short Trial Program (General Order 2013-01). /// /// /// Page 5 of 6 Case 2:18-cv-00067-RFB-CWH Document 6 Filed 04/27/18 Page 6 of 6 1 10. Electronic Evidence: 2 Pursuant to Local Rule 26-1(b)(9), the parties certify that they agree to provide discovery 3 in an electronic format compatible with the court’s electronic jury evidence display system at trial. 4 5 Dated this 27th day of April, 2018 Dated this 27th day of April, 2018 6 RICHARD HARRIS LAW FIRM ATKIN WINNER & SHERROD /s/ Travis H. Dunsmoor TRAVIS H. DUNSMOOR Nevada Bar No.: 13111 801 South Fourth Street Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Attorneys for Plaintiff Earnest Platt /s/ Thomas E. Winner_________________ THOMAS E. WINNER Nevada Bar No.: 5168 VIRGINIA T. TOMOVA Nevada Bar No.: 12504 1117 South Rancho Drive Las Vegas, Nevada 89102 Attorneys for Defendant National General Insurance Company 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ORDER 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED this ___ day of ___________, 2018. 17 Dated: May 1, 2018 18 19 _____________________________________ UNTIED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page 6 of 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.
