Richard Zeitlin et al v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 2:2018cv01919 - Document 51 (D. Nev. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER granting 50 STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (First Request) and Order Extending Deadline to Respond to Motion 48 Motion to Seal and 49 Motion to Compel. Bank of America N.A.'s deadline to file a Declaration in response to Plaint iffs Motion to Seal is extended from May 26, 2020 to June 9, 2020. Bank of America N.A.'s deadline to file papers in response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel is enlarged from 14 days to 21 days from the date on which Plaintiffs file the Mo tion to Compel under seal via ECF pursuant to LR IA 10-5(a) and serve the motion papers upon BANA in accordance with the email service provision contained in the 34 Parties Joint Proposed Scheduling Order, and Plaintiffs time to file reply papers in further support of the Motion to Compel is enlarged from 7 days to 10 days after service of BANAs response. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts on 5/28/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Richard Zeitlin et al v. Bank of America, N.A. Doc. 51 Case 2:18-cv-01919-RFB-DJA Document 51 50 Filed 05/28/20 05/26/20 Page 1 of 6 1 8 Amy F. Sorenson, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 12495 Blakeley E. Griffith, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 12386 Kiah D. Beverly-Graham, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 11916 SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. 3883 Howard Hughes Pkwy, #1100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 Telephone: 702-784-5200 Facsimile: 702-784-5252 Email: asorenson@swlaw.com bgriffith@swlaw.com kbeverly@swlaw.com 9 Attorneys for Defendant Bank of America, N.A. 2 3 4 5 6 Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES 3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 702-784--5200 7 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 12 13 14 15 16 17 RICHARD ZEITLIN, ADVANCED TELEPHONY CONSULTANTS, MRZ MANAGEMENT, LLC, DONOR RELATIONS, LLC, TPFE, INC., AMERICAN TECHNOLOGY SERVICES, COMPLIANCE CONSULTANTS, CHROME BUILDERS CONSTRUCTION, INC., and UNIFIED DATA SERVICES, 20 21 STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO SEAL AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR MOTION TO COMPEL (FIRST REQUEST) 18 19 Case No.: 2:18-cv-01919-RFB-DJA Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., and JOHN and JANE DOES 1-100, Defendants. 22 23 24 Pursuant to Local Rule IA 6-1, Plaintiffs Richard Zeitlin, Advanced Telephony 25 Consultants, MRZ Management, LLC, Donor Relations, LLC, TPFE, Inc., American Technology 26 Services, Compliance Consultants, Chrome Builders Construction, and Unified Data Services 27 (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA” and together with Plaintiffs the 28 “Parties” and each a “Party”), through their counsel of record hereby stipulate to (i) a 14-day 4825-5995-5901 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:18-cv-01919-RFB-DJA Document 51 50 Filed 05/28/20 05/26/20 Page 2 of 6 1 extension of BANA’s deadline to file a Declaration in response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to 2 File Motion Under Seal, dated May 19, 2020 (ECF No. 48) (“Motion to Seal”); (ii) a 7-day 3 extension of BANA’s deadline to file a response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, which Plaintiffs 4 expect to file imminently; and (iii) a 3-day extension of Plaintiffs’ deadline to file a reply in 5 support of the Motion to Compel. 6 Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES 3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 702-784--5200 7 The Parties respectfully request the Court enter this Stipulation as an Order. In support of this request, the Parties represent as follows. 8 On May 19, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Seal, seeking to file the underlying 9 Motion to Compel under seal. Plaintiffs intended file the Motion to Compel under seal via ECF 10 the same day, as required by LR IA 10-5(a). However, the ECF system did not allow Plaintiffs to 11 file the Motion to Compel under seal, and they did not receive a response to counsel’s telephone 12 inquiries to the ECF Helpdesk. Further, due to administrative error, Plaintiffs did not serve a copy 13 of the Motion to Compel on BANA until May 26, 2020. 14 Consequently, BANA was served with the Motion to Seal via ECF but did not receive a 15 copy of the underlying Motion to Compel and was not aware that Plaintiff had attempted to file 16 the latter motion until May 26. 17 Among other things, the Motion to Compel will challenge the propriety of BANA’s 18 designation of certain documents produced in discovery as “Confidential” pursuant to a Stipulated 19 Protective Order submitted on October 23, 2019 (ECF No. 42) and the Court’s Order entering the 20 Stipulation, as modified, on October 29, 2019 (ECF No . 43) (together the “Protective Order”). 21 The papers requested to be sealed are, or refer to, documents which BANA produced as 22 “Confidential.” 23 Because the Motion to Seal is based on the fact that BANA designated the documents 24 Plaintiffs intend to file as “Confidential”, the Protective Order requires BANA to file, within 25 seven days of the filing of the Motion to Seal, a declaration “establishing sufficient justification 26 for sealing each document at issue . . . ” Protective Order at 3:9-15. The existing deadline for 27 BANA’s Declaration is May 26, 2020. 28 -24825-5995-5901 Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES 3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 702-784--5200 Case 2:18-cv-01919-RFB-DJA Document 51 50 Filed 05/28/20 05/26/20 Page 3 of 6 1 Because BANA was not originally served with the Motion to Compel and its supporting 2 documents; did not receive an ECF notification that a Motion to Compel had been filed under 3 seal; and was not otherwise notified of the specific documents which Plaintiffs seek to file under 4 seal, BANA is unable to file the required Declaration within seven days of filing as required by 5 the Protective Order. BANA does not have sufficient time to prepare a Declaration establishing 6 the justification for sealing each document at issue because it was not aware of the identity of 7 those documents until May 26, 2020, the very day the Declaration is due. The Parties agree this 8 state of affairs is due to inadvertent error and that good cause exists to extend the deadline as 9 requested herein. 10 In addition, the Parties agree that the issues raised by the two motions are complex, and 11 that BANA’s ability to respond to these issues within seven days is substantially impaired by the 12 ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which has significantly slowed the business operations and 13 internal processes necessary to assist in preparing the required Declaration. BANA’s ability to 14 timely draft papers in opposition to the Motion to Compel is similarly affected. Accordingly, the 15 Parties further agree there is good cause to enlarge the seven-day period to file the Declaration to 16 fourteen days and to establish an enlarged briefing schedule with respect to the Motion to Compel 17 as set forth below. 18 The Parties are aware that the Motion to Compel, with respect to which they seek entry of 19 an enlarged briefing schedule, has not yet been filed. The parties submit this request now in an 20 effort to avoid burdening the Court with successive stipulations to extend time and because they 21 anticipate the Motion to Compel will be filed imminently, once Plaintiffs have resolved the 22 aforementioned technical issues with the ECF system. 23 24 25 26 27 28 Accordingly, the Parties agree there is good cause for entry of the following new deadlines: 1. BANA’s deadline to file the Declaration required by the Protective Order is enlarged and extended from May 26, 2020 to June 9, 2020; 2. BANA’s time to file papers in response to the Motion to Compel is enlarged from 14 days to 21 days from the date on which Plaintiffs file the Motion to Compel under seal via -34825-5995-5901 Case 2:18-cv-01919-RFB-DJA Document 51 50 Filed 05/28/20 05/26/20 Page 4 of 6 1 ECF pursuant to LR IA 10-5(a) and serve the motion papers upon BANA in accordance with the 2 email service provision contained in the Parties’ Joint Proposed Scheduling Order, submitted on 3 May 17, 2019 (ECF No. 34); and 4 5 3. Plaintiffs’ time to file reply papers in further support of the Motion to Compel is enlarged from 7 days to 10 days after service of BANA’s response. 6 This is the parties’ first request for the relief sought herein, and the parties agree that the 7 requested extensions will not prejudice any party. No deadline for which an extension is requested 8 herein has expired. 9 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 10 Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES 3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 702-784--5200 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Dated: May 26, 2020 DATED: May 26, 2020 THE BERNHOFT LAW FIRM, S.C. SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. /s/ Daniel J. Treuden (with permission) Robert G. Bernhoft, Esq. Admitted Pro Hac Vice Wisconsin Bar No. 1032777 Thomas E. Kimble, Esq. Admitted Pro Hac Vice Illinois Bar No. 6257935 Daniel James Treuden, Esq. Wisconsin Bar No. 1052766 1402 E. Cesar Chavez Street Austin, Texas 78702 /s/ Kiah D. Beverly-Graham Amy F. Sorenson, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 12495 Blakeley E. Griffith, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 12386 Kiah D. Beverly-Graham, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 11916 3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1100 Las Vegas, NV 89169 22 Joel F. Hansen, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 1876 Hansen & Hansen, LLC 9030 W. Cheyenne Avenue, #210 Las Vegas, Nevada 89129 23 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 20 21 Attorneys for Defendant Bank of America, N.A. 24 ORDER 25 26 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Bank of America N.A.’s deadline to file a 27 Declaration in response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal is extended from May 26, 2020 to June 9, 28 2020; -44825-5995-5901 Case 2:18-cv-01919-RFB-DJA Document 51 50 Filed 05/28/20 05/26/20 Page 5 of 6 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Bank of America N.A.’s deadline to file 2 papers in response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel is enlarged from 14 days to 21 days from the 3 date on which Plaintiffs file the Motion to Compel under seal via ECF pursuant to LR IA 10-5(a) 4 and serve the motion papers upon BANA in accordance with the email service provision 5 contained in the Parties’ Joint Proposed Scheduling Order, submitted on May 17, 2019 (ECF No. 6 34); and 7 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ time to file reply papers in further support of the Motion to Compel is enlarged from 7 days to 10 days after service of BANA’s response. 9 ____________________________________ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES 3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 702-784--5200 11 May 28, 2020 DATED: ____________________________ 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -54825-5995-5901 Case 2:18-cv-01919-RFB-DJA Document 51 50 Filed 05/28/20 05/26/20 Page 6 of 6 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I hereby certify that on this date, I electronically filed the foregoing STIPULATION 3 AND ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO SEAL AND 4 BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR MOTION TO COMPEL with the Clerk of the Court for the 5 U.S. District Court, District of Nevada by using the Court’s CM/ECF system. Participants in the 6 case who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by the CM/ECF system. 7 DATED: May 26, 2020 8 /s/ Lara J. Taylor An Employee of Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. 9 10 Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES 3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 702-784--5200 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -64825-5995-5901
]]>
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.
