Thomson v. Russell Investment Management LLC et al, No. 2:2021cv00961 - Document 150 (D. Nev. 2024)
Court Description: ORDER granting 149 Motion to Extend Time. Discovery due by 5/7/2024. Motions due by 9/16/2024. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler on 1/2/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LG)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Thomson v. Russell Investment Management LLC et al 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Doc. 150 Paul S. Padda NV Bar No. 10417 PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC 4560 South Decatur Blvd., Suite 300 Las Vegas, NV 89103 Tel: 702.366.1888 psp@paulpaddalaw.com Paul J. Lukas, MN Bar No. 22084X* lukas@nka.com Brock J. Specht, MN Bar No. 0388343* bspecht@nka.com Benjamin J. Bauer, MN Bar No. 0398853* bbauer@nka.com NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4700 IDS Center 80 S 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 *admitted pro hac vice 14 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF AND THE PROPOSED CLASS 15 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 17 18 19 20 21 DANNY WANEK and JUAN DUARTE, as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the Caesars Entertainment Corporation Savings & Retirement Plan, Plaintiffs, 22 23 24 25 26 27 Case No. 2:21-cv-00961-CDS-BNW JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND CASE DEADLINES (FIRST REQUEST FOR EXTENSION) v. RUSSELL INVESTMENTS TRUST COMPANY, CAESARS HOLDINGS, INC., THE PLAN INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, and THE 401(K) PLAN COMMITTEE. Defendants. 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Plaintiffs Danny Wanek and Juan Duarte (“Plaintiffs”), as representatives of a proposed 2 class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the Caesars Entertainment Corporation Savings 3 & Retirement Plan, and Defendants Russell Investments Trust Company, Caesars Holdings, Inc., 4 the Plan Investment Committee, and the 401(k) Plan Committee (“Defendants”) (collectively, the 5 “Parties”), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby jointly request that the Court extend 6 the deadlines in the Court’s Amended Scheduling Order (ECF No. 115) as specified below: 7 8 9 10 11 12 WHEREAS, the Court issued the original Scheduling Order in this case on October 12, 2021 (ECF No. 63), while Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss were pending; WHEREAS, the original Scheduling Order listed placeholder dates to be adjusted based on the timing of the Court’s decision on Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss; WHEREAS, the Court issued an Amended Scheduling Order on April 20, 2023 (ECF No. 115) listing specific dates for each deadline; 13 WHEREAS, after the Court issued the Amended Scheduling Order, Defendants began the 14 process of identifying custodians, collecting additional potentially responsive materials and 15 electronically stored information (“ESI”), and engaging vendors to assist with processing and 16 reviewing the materials and ESI. Due to the volume of additional materials and ESI that needed to 17 be collected, the process of identifying and collecting materials and ESI potentially responsive to 18 Plaintiffs’ requests for production of documents has taken longer than anticipated; 19 20 21 22 WHEREAS, the Parties have already produced tens of thousands of documents and document productions are still ongoing; WHEREAS, the Parties have conducted depositions of representatives from each party and are in the process of scheduling additional depositions; 23 WHEREAS, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint adding two 24 additional Named Plaintiffs and reinstating their claim for co-fiduciary liability against the Caesars 25 Defendants remains pending; 26 27 28 WHEREAS, this motion is not the result of unnecessary delay or a lack of diligence in conducting discovery by any party; WHEREAS, the current deadline to complete fact discovery is February 7, 2024; 2 1 WHEREAS, the Parties request to extend the fact discovery deadline and, as a result, each 2 of the affected deadlines below, by roughly 90 days (accounting for holidays, weekends, or other 3 scheduling conflicts); 4 WHEREAS, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) requires a showing of good cause 5 and the judge’s consent in order to extend case deadlines. Pursuant to Ninth Circuit caselaw, “[t]he 6 proper procedure, when additional time for any purpose is needed, is to present to the Court a timely 7 request for an extension before the time fixed has expired[.]” Shields v. Baker, 2020 WL 8991812, 8 at *2 (D. Nev. May 5, 2020) (quotation omitted). “Additionally, courts have inherent power to 9 control their dockets.” Id. (citing Hamilton v. Copper & Steel Corp. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 898 F.2d 10 1428, 1429 (9th Cir. 1990)); see also Nelson v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Illinois, 2011 WL 12848, at *2 11 (D. Nev. Jan. 4, 2011) (exercising discretion to extend deadlines despite a party’s lack of diligence). 12 Courts generally find good cause where parties must review thousands of documents before the 13 close of discovery and where other motions filed during the discovery period remain pending. See, 14 e.g., Internet Sports Int’l, Ltd., v. Amelco USA, LLC, 2023 WL 6540193, at *1 (D. Nev. Oct. 6, 15 2023) (granting request for extension where “thousands of documents” would take “significant time 16 to review”); Hampton v. Nevada, 2021 WL 3573640, at *2 (D. Nev. July 29, 2021) (granting motion 17 to extend deadlines where motion to amend the complaint remained pending); Cervantes v. Scott, 18 2020 WL 1816294, at *2 (D. Nev. Apr. 9, 2020) (granting request to extend deadlines where a 19 motion for reconsideration remained pending). 20 WHEREAS, the parties have demonstrated that there is good cause to reasonably extend 21 the below deadlines. The voluminous document productions in this case require time to gather, 22 review, and produce. The requested extension will allow the Parties time to review the documents 23 before completing additional depositions and allow the Parties additional time after the holidays to 24 coordinate the schedules of the multiple parties required to conduct each deposition. Further, the 25 discovery period will account for any delays in the production of responsive materials and ESI and 26 allow the Parties to continue to diligently pursue discovery. Finally, extending the discovery period 27 will allow the Court additional time to rule on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Fourth 28 3 1 Amended Complaint and additional time for the Parties to conduct depositions of the additional 2 Named Plaintiffs if the motion is granted. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 WHEREAS, counsel for the Parties have conferred and agreed to the following deadlines: Event Fact Discovery Deadline Proposed Date May 7, 2024 Deadline for Plaintiffs to serve their expert June 7, 2024 reports Deadline Defendants to serve their expert July 19, 2024 reports Deadline for Plaintiffs to serve their rebuttal August 16, 2024 expert reports Deadline for expert discovery September 6, 2024 Deadline for summary judgment motions September 16, 2024 WHEREAS, this request is not made for purposes of delay; and WHEREAS, this is the first request for an extension of time for the subject deadlines; IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the Parties will abide by the following deadlines: Event Fact Discovery Deadline Proposed Date May 7, 2024 Deadline for Plaintiffs to serve their expert June 7, 2024 reports Deadline Defendants to serve their expert July 19, 2024 reports Deadline for Plaintiffs to serve their rebuttal August 16, 2024 expert reports Deadline for expert discovery September 6, 2024 Deadline for summary judgment motions September 16, 2024 25 26 27 28 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Dated: December 29, 2023 Dated: December 29, 2023 NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP /s/ Benjamin J. Bauer Paul J. Lukas, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice) Brock J. Specht, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice) Benjamin J. Bauer, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice) 4700 IDS Center 80 S. 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 MAYER BROWN LLP /s/ D. Matthew Moscon D. Matthew Moscon (admitted pro hac vice) 201 South Main Street, Suite 1100 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 907-2703 mmoscon@mayerbrown.com PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC Paul S. Padda, Esq. 4560 South Decatur Blvd., Suite 300 Las Vegas, NV 89103 Telephone: (702) 366-1888 Attorneys for Plaintiff MAYER BROWN LLP Nancy G. Ross (admitted pro hac vice) 71 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 782-0600 nross@mayerbrown.com LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. Patrick H. Hicks, Esq. Bar. No. 004632 Diana G. Dickinson, Esq. Bar No. 13477 3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 300 Las Vegas, Nevada 89169-5937 Telephone: (702) 862-8800 phicks@littler.com ddickinson@littler.com 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Attorneys for Defendant Caesars Holdings, Inc., the Plan Investment Committee, and the 401(k) Plan Committee MILBANK LLP /s/ Robert C. Hora Sean M. Murphy, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice) Robert C. Hora, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice) Joseph J. Kammerman, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice) Emily E. Werkmann, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice) 55 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 530-5000 PARSONS, BEHLE & LATIMER Rew R. Goodenow, Esq. NSBN 3722 Michael R. Kealy, Esq. NSBN 971 50 West Liberty Street, Suite 750 Reno, NV 89501 Telephone: (775) 323-1601 5 1 Attorneys for Defendant Russell Investments Trust Company 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 DATED: _____________________ 1/2/2024 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 14 _________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.
