Forman v. United Health Products, Inc. et al, No. 2:2019cv00519 - Document 29 (D. Nev. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER granting 28 Stipulation to Extend Discovery Deadlines (Second Request). Discovery due by 2/1/2021. Motions due by 3/1/2021. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 3/26/2021. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 12/2/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Forman v. United Health Products, Inc. et al Doc. 29 Case 2:19-cv-00519-GMN-VCF Document 29 Filed 12/02/20 Page 1 of 7 10001 Park Run Drive Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 (702) 382-0711 FAX: (702) 382-5816 MARQUIS AURBACH COFFING 1 Marquis Aurbach Coffing Scott A. Marquis, Esq. 2 Nevada Bar No. 6407 Michael D. Maupin, Esq. 3 Nevada Bar No. 13721 10001 Park Run Drive 4 Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 Telephone: (702) 382-0711 5 Facsimile: (702) 382-5816 smarquis@maclaw.com 6 mmaupin@maclaw.com 7 Carmel, Milazzo & Feil, LLP Ross David Carmel, Esq. 8 New York Bar No. 4686580 Pro Hac Vice Forthcoming 9 55 West 39th Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10018 10 rcarmel@cmdllf.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Phillip Forman 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 13 PHILLIP FORMAN, an individual, 14 15 Case Number: 2:19-cv-519-GMN-VCF Plaintiff, vs. 16 UNITED HEALTH PRODUCTS, INC., a Nevada domestic corporation; and 17 DOUGLAS K. BEPLATE, an individual, 18 STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (SECOND REQUEST) Defendant. 19 Plaintiff, Phillip Forman (“Dr. Forman” or “Plaintiff”), by and through his attorneys, 20 the law firms of Marquis Aurbach Coffing and Carmel, Milazzo & Feil, LLP and Defendants 21 United Health Products, Inc. (“UHP”) and Douglas K. Beplate (“Beplate”) (collectively 22 referred to herein as the “Defendants), by and through their counsel of record, Frank H. Cofer 23 III, Esq., of the law firm of Cofer & Geller, LLC, hereby stipulate as follows: 24 SUMMARY OF RELIEF REQUESTED 25 This stipulation is a request to extend the current discovery deadlines as set forth in 26 the parties previous extension of the Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order by a 27 28 Page 1 of 6 MAC:15566-001 4215922_1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:19-cv-00519-GMN-VCF Document 29 Filed 12/02/20 Page 2 of 7 1 period of sixty (60) days. This is the parties’ request for their second extension of the 2 discovery deadlines. 3 4 11 A motion or stipulation to extend any date set by the discovery plan, scheduling order, or other order must, in addition to satisfying the requirements of LR IA 6-1, be supported by a showing of good cause for the extension. A motion or stipulation to extend a deadline set forth in a discovery plan must be received by the court no later than 21 days before the expiration of the subject deadline. A request made within 21 days of the subject deadline must be supported by a showing of good cause. A request made after the expiration of the subject deadline will not be granted unless the movant also demonstrates that the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect. A motion or stipulation to extend a discovery deadline or to reopen discovery must include: 12 (a) A statement specifying the discovery completed; 13 (b) A specific description of the discovery that remains to be completed; 5 6 7 8 9 10001 Park Run Drive Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 (702) 382-0711 FAX: (702) 382-5816 10 MARQUIS AURBACH COFFING Pursuant to LR 26-3 14 15 16 17 18 (c) The reasons why the deadline was not satisfied or the remaining discovery was not completed within the time limits set by the discovery plan; and (d) A proposed schedule for completing all remaining discovery. LR 26-3 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The parties therefore submit this stipulation to in order to set forth the information required under LR 26-3(a)-(d). The parties respectfully submit this second amended stipulation in order to establish that good cause exists to extend the discovery deadlines in that a) Defendants did not produce written responses or responsive documents to Plaintiff’s discovery demands until a date one month following the entry of the Order initially extending the discovery period (DKT#27) (based on communications between the parties, it appears that Defendants either did not anticipate the amount of time required to assemble responsive documents and produce their witnesses due to COVID-19 restrictions and other logistical considerations); b) neither Defendant Beplate nor UHP, through an officer or director, have Page 2 of 6 MAC:15566-001 4215922_1 Case 2:19-cv-00519-GMN-VCF Document 29 Filed 12/02/20 Page 3 of 7 1 been available or have been made available for depositions; and c) the parties continue to 2 experience setbacks and delays due to COVID-19 reschedulings, which are still occurring, 3 and continued difficulties in logistics such that these matters could not be . original discovery 4 deadlines were set without reference to the impact that the global coronavirus pandemic would 5 have, not only on this case, but on their counsel’s ability to conduct matters in their usual 6 efficient course in the broader sense. 7 A. 8 To date, the parties have already engaged in various aspects of discovery despite the DISCOVERY COMPLETED 9 substantial hardships experienced thus far. The parties have already exchanged their initial 11 interrogatories. Plaintiff has served his written responses to Defendants’ document demands 10001 Park Run Drive Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 (702) 382-0711 FAX: (702) 382-5816 MARQUIS AURBACH COFFING 10 disclosures. The parties have all served their document demands and their demands for 12 and his written responses to Defendants’ demands for interrogatories. Plaintiff has also made 13 his production of documents responsive thereto. Defendants have produced responsive 14 documents to Plaintiff’s document demands. 15 B. 16 The outstanding discovery to be complete is the completion of Defendants’ SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF DISCOVERY TO BE COMPLETED 17 depositions. If it appears, following the depositions, that existing documents were not 18 produced or that Defendants intend to set forth certain defenses, pursuant to which no 19 documents were produced, Plaintiffs will move to compel the production of those materials. 20 C. 21 As set forth in the first request for a sixty-day extension of discovery deadlines, at the REASON FOR THE REQUEST 22 time such request was made, the entirety of the discovery in this matter had been conducted 23 during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has left law firms riddled with delays in cases and 24 postponements of deadlines and hearings. In fact, discovery started during the lockdown 25 period, which persisted, and both the parties and their attorneys had limited if any access to 26 their offices. The parties were simply unable to complete discovery, or make substantial steps 27 towards its completion during the early stages of the pandemic and the resulting lockdown. 28 Page 3 of 6 MAC:15566-001 4215922_1 Case 2:19-cv-00519-GMN-VCF Document 29 Filed 12/02/20 Page 4 of 7 1 Thus the parties requested, and were Granted, an additional sixty days in which to complete 2 discovery. 3 However, while the first sixty-day extension provided the parties with some much 4 needed additional time to conduct discovery, much of this additional time was necessarily 5 allocated to the backlog of attention to other matters which have also been delayed. In 6 addition, rescheduled matters have complicated the parties’ calendars such that certain matters 7 have had to have been further extended. Indeed, counsel for each party are small law firms, 8 which have been the hardest hit by the pandemic from a scheduling perspective. 9 Because this request is one suggested and insisted upon by Plaintiff, it serves to note 11 Plaintiff requires the discovery sought, and Plaintiff was not at fault for the delay. As of the 10001 Park Run Drive Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 (702) 382-0711 FAX: (702) 382-5816 MARQUIS AURBACH COFFING 10 that there is good cause for an extension insofar as this request is made at Plaintiff’s request, 12 date of the first Order Granting an extension of time, Plaintiff’s document demands were 13 outstanding. Plaintiffs continued to request that Defendants respond to their demands and on 14 multiple occasions Defendants stated that responses were forthcoming. However, at each 15 point by which Defendants stated they would produce responses and documents, they failed 16 to respond as promised. In fact, the parties had to meet and confer to resolve Defendants’ 17 wholesale failure to provide even written responses to the document demands. It was not until 18 Plaintiff finally advised that it would file a motion for sanctions by the close of business of 19 even date did Defendants finally make their production. 20 All told, Defendants did not produce their documents until one month following the 21 first extension Order, in the last week of October 2020. Therefore, the sixty days in which 22 the parties had to work was cut in half due to Defendants’ delay. Moreover, another week 23 would be lost due to Thanksgiving break.1 24 When Plaintiff finally received Defendants’ production of documents, it inquired as to 25 when Defendants would produce witnesses for depositions. Defendants failed to provide any 26 27 28 1 In addition, counsel for Plaintiff would be preparing for an arbitration involving over 100,000 documents, which was postponed from September for COVID-19 related reasons. Page 4 of 6 MAC:15566-001 4215922_1 Case 2:19-cv-00519-GMN-VCF Document 29 Filed 12/02/20 Page 5 of 7 1 acceptable dates for depositions. Thereafter, Plaintiff followed up by telephone and was 2 advised that one of Defendants’ proposed witnesses had a COVID-19 related problem (it is 3 unclear if said witness actually contracted COVID-19) and that scheduling would be 4 complicated. Plaintiff requested that availability be provided for Defendant Beplate, but 5 advised that he was busy with corporate matters. Plaintiff requested that dates be provided 6 for the depositions, notwithstanding the foregoing. Defendants never provided any dates they 7 would be available for depositions. Thereafter, Plaintiff followed up by email requesting that 8 Defendants propose dates for depositions. Once again, Defendants failed to provide dates of 9 availability or even to respond to said email. Accordingly, even with Plaintiff’s diligence in requesting and following up for 11 discovery responses and deposition dates, it was unable to complete the discovery required by 10001 Park Run Drive Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 (702) 382-0711 FAX: (702) 382-5816 MARQUIS AURBACH COFFING 10 12 no fault of its own. 13 Therefore, good cause exists for the Grant of the requested extension. First, the 14 COVID-19 pandemic continues to affect lawsuits, arbitration, and all litigation matters. This 15 is especially the case for smaller law firms like those involved in this matter. 16 Second, as this request originates from Plaintiff, and it is Plaintiff who requires the 17 outstanding discovery, and as the delay in completing said discovery came at the hands of 18 Defendants, equity and justice require that Plaintiff be afforded the opportunity to conduct the 19 discovery it attempted to complete, and would have completed, but for Defendants’ delays. 20 Finally, the nature of the outstanding discovery and posture of the parties tends in favor 21 of an extension. The remaining discovery consists of the deposition of the Defendants 22 followed by a determination of whether brief supplemental documentary discovery is 23 required. These are matters which are absolutely crucial to a determination of the case on its 24 merits. 25 Moreover, neither party would be prejudiced by the extension as they each consent to 26 this stipulation and no party has changed any position or posture in reliance on the current 27 deadlines. 28 Page 5 of 6 MAC:15566-001 4215922_1 Case 2:19-cv-00519-GMN-VCF Document 29 Filed 12/02/20 Page 6 of 7 1 In sum, the difficulties imposed upon the parties due to the coronavirus pandemic, in 2 addition to the delays caused by Defendants in light of the need of the discovery by Plaintiff, 3 constitute good cause for the extension sought. 4 D. CURRENT DEADLINES AND PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION OF OUTSTANDING DISCOVERY 5 The current pertinent deadlines to be extended as set forth are as follows: Close of discovery: 1 December 1, 2020 – Extended to February 1, 2020 Initial Expert disclosures: None anticipated. 6 7 8 Rebuttal Expert disclosures: None anticipated 9 11 10001 Park Run Drive Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 (702) 382-0711 FAX: (702) 382-5816 MARQUIS AURBACH COFFING 10 1 Final Date to file dispositive: December 29, 2020 – Extended to March 1, 2020 motions 1 1 Joint Pretrial Order : January 26, 2020 – Extended to March 26, 2020 12 Dated this __30th_ day of November, 2020 Dated this _30th__ day of November, 2020 13 MARQUIS AURBACH COFFING COFER & GELLER, LLC 14 By:/s/ Michael D. Maupin Scott A. Marquis, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 6407 16 Michael D. Maupin, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 13721 17 10001 Park Run Drive Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 18 By:/s/ Frank H. Cofer Frank H. Cofer III, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 11362 601 South Tenth Street Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 15 19 20 21 22 23 24 CARMEL, MILAZZO & FEIL, LLP Ross David Carmel, Esq. (pro hac vice admitted) 55 West 39th St. 18th Floor New York, New York 10018 Attorneys for Plaintiff FormanPlaintiff Phillip Forman 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. Howard R. Birnbach, Esq. (pro hac vice admitted) 111 Great Neck, New York 11021 Phillip Attorneys for Defendants United Health Products, Inc. and Douglas K. Beplate ORDER IT IS SO ORDERED: 25 26 27 28 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12-2-2020 DATED: Page 6 of 6 MAC:15566-001 4215922_1 Case 2:19-cv-00519-GMN-VCF Document 29 28 Filed 12/02/20 11/30/20 Page 7 of 7 Cally Hatfield Subject: FW: [External] Forman v. UHP [IWOV-iManage.FID1072356] From: hrbatlaw@aol.com <hrbatlaw@aol.com> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 5:36 PM To: mnacht@cmfllp.com; fcofer@defense.vegas Cc: rcarmel@cmfllp.com; cmilazzo@cmfllp.com; Michael D. Maupin <mmaupin@maclaw.com>; Scott Marquis <smarquis@maclaw.com> Subject: Re: [External] Forman v. UHP I consent to the relief requested in the proposed Stipulation and Order. Howard R. Birnbach -----Original Message----From: Michael Nacht <mnacht@cmfllp.com> To: hrbatlaw@aol.com <hrbatlaw@aol.com>; fcofer@defense.vegas <fcofer@defense.vegas> Cc: Ross Carmel <rcarmel@cmfllp.com>; Chris Milazzo <cmilazzo@cmfllp.com>; Michael D. Maupin <mmaupin@maclaw.com>; Scott Marquis <smarquis@maclaw.com> Sent: Mon, Nov 30, 2020 8:17 pm Subject: RE: Forman v. UHP See attached. Please confirm that you approve of this and that we can apply Frank’s signature, as he authorized. Michael David Nacht, Esq. | Associate | Carmel, Milazzo & Feil LLP Main: 212-658-0458; Ext. 1005 | Direct: 646-868-3880 | Fax: 646-838-1314 Email: mnacht@cmfllp.com | Bio | LinkedIn | Website: www.cmfllp.com Manhattan Office: 55 West 39th Street, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10018 New York City | New Jersey | Long Island | Beverly Hills NOTICE: The information contained in this communication is legally privileged and/or confidential information, which is intended only for use of recipient. If the reader of this communication is not the intended recipient (or the agent or employee responsible to deliver it to the intended (recipient), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication by error, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail and delete this email from your system. Nothing in this email should be construed as a legal opinion or tax advice. 1
]]>
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.
