Choi v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, No. 2:2020cv01329 - Document 38 (D. Nev. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER granting 37 Stipulation - Discovery due by 5/9/2022. Motions due by 6/13/2022. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 7/11/2022. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 11/10/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Choi v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Doc. 38 Case 2:20-cv-01329-RFB-VCF Document 37 Filed 11/09/21 Page 1 of 6 1 ROBERT W. FREEMAN Nevada Bar No. 3062 2 E-Mail: Robert.Freeman@lewisbrisbois.com CHERYL A. GRAMES 3 Nevada Bar No. 12752 E-Mail: Cheryl.Grames@lewisbrisbois.com 4 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 6385 S. Rainbow Boulevard, Suite 600 5 Las Vegas, Nevada 89118 TEL: 702.893.3383 6 FAX: 702.893.3789 Attorneys for Defendant State Farm Mutual 7 Automobile Insurance Company 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA, SOUTHERN DIVISION 10 *** 11 YUNA CHOI, an individual; Plaintiff, 12 13 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES vs. 14 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois 15 corporation; DOES I through X; and ROE CORPORATIONS I through X; 16 Defendants. 17 18 CASE NO.: 2:20-cv-1329-RFB-VCF [FOURTH REQUEST] Pursuant to LR 6-1 and LR 26-3, the parties, by and through their respective counsel of 19 record, hereby stipulate and request that this Court extend discovery in the above-captioned case 20 ninety (90) days, up to and including Tuesday, February 22, 2022. In addition, the parties request 21 that the all other future deadlines contemplated by the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order be 22 extended pursuant to Local Rule. In support of this Stipulation and Request, the parties state as 23 follows: 24 1. 25 26 Court, Nevada. 2. 27 LEWIS On March 27, 2020, Plaintiff filed her Complaint in the Clark County District On June 10, 2020, Plaintiff served the Complaint on the Nevada Department of Business and Industry, Division of Insurance. 28 BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 4891-1023-3346.1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:20-cv-01329-RFB-VCF Document 37 Filed 11/09/21 Page 2 of 6 1 3. On July 17, 2020, Defendant filed its Petition for Removal. 2 4. On July 30, 2020, Defendant filed its Answer to Complaint (pursuant to stipulation extension (ECF No. 7)). 3 4 5. On August 19, 2020, the parties conducted an initial FRCP 26(f) conference 5 6. On September 2, 2020, the Court entered the Stipulated Discovery Order. 6 7. On September 30, 2021, Defendant served its FRCP 26 Initial Disclosures on Plaintiff. 7 8 8. Defendant. 9 10 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. On March 31, 2021, Defendant noticed its intent to serve records subpoenas on Plaintiff’s treatment providers and employer. 19 20 14. On April 14, 2021, Defendant deposed Plaintiff. 21 15. On April 14, 2021, Defendant re-noticed its intent to serve records subpoenas on 22 Plaintiff’s treatment providers and employer, as an administrative oversight caused 23 the subpoenas not to have been served after Defendant noticed its intent to serve 24 them on March 31, 2021. 25 LEWIS On March 29, 2021, Counsel conferred regarding tentative deposition topics for an FRCP 30(b)(6) witness deposition of Defendant. 17 18 On December 30, 2020, Plaintiff served her first supplement to her FRCP 26 Disclosures. 15 16 On November 24, 2020, Plaintiff served written discovery on Defendant. Defendant served its responses on January 6, 2021. 13 14 On November 19, 2020, Defendant served written discovery on Plaintiff. Plaintiff served her responses on December 30, 2020. 11 12 On October 23, 2020, Plaintiff served her FRCP 26 Initial Disclosures on 16. On May 14, 2021, Defendant served a supplement to its FRCP 26 Initial 26 Disclosures containing medical records and bills it had received as a result of its 27 records subpoenas. 28 BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 4891-1023-3346.1 2 Case 2:20-cv-01329-RFB-VCF Document 37 Filed 11/09/21 Page 3 of 6 1 17. Disclosures. 2 3 On August 16, 2021, Defendant served its second supplement to its FRCP 26 Initial 18. On August 31, 2021, Plaintiff underwent an Independent Medical Examination / 4 Rule 35 Examination pursuant to the terms and conditions of her subject car policy 5 with State Farm. This had been previously set for late July, but the provider had an 6 unanticipated scheduling issue and the examination had to be postponed. 7 19. On September 27, 2021, Defendant served its third supplement to its FRCP 26 Initial Disclosures. 8 9 20. On September 27, 2021, Defendant served its Designation of Expert Witness. 10 21. On October 12, 2021, served its fourth supplement to its FRCP 26 Initial Disclosures. 11 12 22. Expert Witness. 13 14 On October 21, 2021, Defendant served its first supplement to Designation of 23. On November 9, 2021, Defendant served its fifth supplement to its FRCP 26 Initial 15 Disclosures, which included almost 7,000 pages of documents and over a terabyte 16 of data. 17 DISCOVERY REMAINING 18 1. The parties will continue participating in written discovery. 19 2. Plaintiff will take the deposition of Defendant’s FRCP 30(b)(6) witness and/or the claims specialist. 20 21 4. through discovery. 22 23 5. The parties will designate initial expert witnesses. 24 6. The parties may designate rebuttal expert witnesses. 25 7. The parties may depose expert witnesses. 26 27 LEWIS The parties may take the depositions of any and all other witnesses garnered WHY REMAINING DISCOVERY HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED The parties aver, pursuant to Local Rule 26-3, that good cause exists for the following 28 requested extension. This Request for an extension of time is not sought for any improper purpose BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 4891-1023-3346.1 3 Case 2:20-cv-01329-RFB-VCF Document 37 Filed 11/09/21 Page 4 of 6 1 or other purpose of delay. Rather, it is sought by the parties solely for the purpose of allowing 2 sufficient time to conduct discovery. The parties seek additional time to complete discovery for several reasons, none of which 3 4 are for an improper purpose or for the purpose of delay. Primarily, the parties have encountered 5 scheduling issues as to Plaintiff’s deposition of Defendant’s FRCP 30(b)(6) witness. First, 6 Defendant’s production of claim handling guidelines (produced pursuant to the parties’ stipulated 7 protective order) took longer than anticipated. These documents are voluminous – almost 7,000 8 pages – and comprise over a terabyte of data. With Defendant-employees continuing to work 9 remotely and certain of defense counsel’s employees working remotely, these production 10 processes has been unusually time-consuming. Thus, to afford Plaintiff’s counsel sufficient time 11 to review these documents, the parties believe the FRCP 30(b)(6) witness deposition must be 12 postponed. Second, defense counsel’s staffing resources underwent an unexpected shift as a 13 senior partner announced their departure, and the undersigned will be assuming their case load. 14 As such, defense counsel requires this extension to accommodate a very sudden doubling of cases, 15 all of which are in various stages of active litigation. Thus, additional time is necessary to 16 adequately prepare the FRCP 30(b)(6) deposition. As this FRCP 30(b)(6) witness testimony 17 pertains to Defendant’s handling of the subject UIM claim, said deposition needs to occur 18 sufficiently in advance of the expert designation deadlines. Accordingly, the parties request an 19 extension of the current discovery deadlines to allow the parties an opportunity to develop in full 20 their respective cases in chief. Extension or Modification of The Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. LR 26-3 governs 21 22 modifications or extension of the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. Any stipulation or 23 motion to extend or modify that Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order must be made no later than 24 twenty-one (21) days before the expiration of the subject deadline and must comply fully with LR 25 26-3. 26 This is the fourth request for extension of time in this matter. The parties respectfully 27 submit that the reasons set forth above constitute compelling reasons for the short extension. LEWIS 28 The following is a list of the current discovery deadlines and the parties’ proposed BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 4891-1023-3346.1 4 Case 2:20-cv-01329-RFB-VCF Document 37 Filed 11/09/21 Page 5 of 6 1 extended deadlines: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Scheduled Event Current Deadline Proposed Deadline Discovery Cut-off Monday, February 7, 2022 Monday, May 9, 2022 Deadline to Amend Pleadings or Add Parties Closed Closed Expert Disclosure pursuant to FRCP26 (a)(2) Monday December 13, 2021 Monday, March 14, 2022 Rebuttal Expert Wednesday, January 12, 2022 Disclosure pursuant to FRCP. 26(a)(2) Tuesday, April 12, 2022 Dispositive Motions Monday, March 14, 2022 Monday, June 13, 2022 Joint Pretrial Order Monday, April 11, 2022 Monday July 11, 2022 11 12 (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.) 13 14 15 16 / / / 17 / / / 18 / / / 19 / / / 20 / / / 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / LEWIS 28 / / / BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 4891-1023-3346.1 5 Case 2:20-cv-01329-RFB-VCF Document 37 Filed 11/09/21 Page 6 of 6 1 WHEREFORE, the parties respectfully request that this Court extend the discovery 2 period by ninety (90) days from the current deadline of February 7, 2022 up to and including May 3 9, 2022 and the other dates as outlined in accordance with the table above. 4 5 DATED this 9th day of November, 2021. DATED this 9th day of November, 2021. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP MARKMAN LAW /s/ Cheryl A. Grames ROBERT W. FREEMAN Nevada Bar No. 3062 CHERYL A. GRAMES Nevada Bar No. 12752 6385 S. Rainbow Boulevard, Suite 600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89118 Attorneys for Defendant STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY /s/ David A. Markman DAVID A. MARKMAN Nevada Bar No. 12440 4484 S. Pecos Rd., Ste. 140 Las Vegas, Nevada 89121 Attorneys for Plaintiff YUNA CHOI 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ORDER IT IS SO ORDERED: 15 November 16 10th day of _____________, 2021. Dated this _____ 17 ______________________________________ __________________ _________ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 LEWIS 28 BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 4891-1023-3346.1 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.
