Olive et al v. Verizon Wireless Services, LLC et al, No. 2:2024cv00053 - Document 14 (D. Nev. 2024)
Court Description: ORDER granting 13 Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. Discovery due by 10/2/2024. Motions due by 11/1/2024. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 12/2/2024. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts on 2/26/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - CT)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Olive et al v. Verizon Wireless Services, LLC et al 1 2 3 4 5 Doc. 14 WESTLEY U. VILLANUEVA, ESQ Nevada Bar No.: 8708 WUV FIRM, LLC 6767 W. Tropicana Avenue, 2ND Floor Las Vegas, NV 89103 725-258-2988 wes@wuvfirm.com 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 9 10 11 12 13 JOSEPH OLIVE an Individual, BARBARA CHILDERS, an Individual, CYNTHIA DIPINO, an Individual, JULIET PINEDA, an Individual, CAROL S THOMPSON, an Individual, JOAN OLIVER, an Individual, JANE DOES I-X, and JOHN DOES I-X Plaintiffs, Case No.: 2:24-cv-00053-JCM-DJA STIPULATED DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER v. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 VERIZON WIRELESS SERVICES, LLC., a Delaware Corporation ROGER FERNANDEZ, An Individual MATEO PATRICK YLANAN, An Individual, DOES I-X, ROE CORPORATIONS I-X, [SPECIAL SCHEDULING REVIEW REQUEST] Defendants. 21 22 Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and Local Rules of Practice for the United States District 23 Court for the District of Nevada 26-1(a)-(b), Plaintiffs, JOSEPH OLIVE, BARBARA 24 CHILDERS, CYNTHIA DIPINO, JULIET PINEDA, CAROL S THOMPSON, and JOAN 25 OLIVER (“Plaintiffs”), by and through their attorney WESTLEY U. VILLANUEVA, ESQ. of 26 WUV FIRM, LLC and Defendants Verizon Wireless Services, LLC and Mateo Patrick Ylanan 27 28 (“Defendants”), by and through their counsel of record, MARVIN C RUTH of COPPERSMITH Dockets.Justia.com 1 BROCKELMAN PLC conducted a discovery-planning conference on February 5, 2024 and 2 hereby submit to the court the following proposed discovery plan. Additionally, in compliance 3 with LR 26-1 (a)-(b), the parties request a special scheduling review, and the following provides 4 5 a statement of the reasons why longer or different time periods should apply to the case. 6 Defendant Roger Fernandez has not been served yet and has not participated in the preparation 7 of this report. 8 I. 9 PRIOR PROCEEDINGS 10 11 12 13 14 A. DATE OF FILING OF ANSWER BY FIRST ANSWERING DEFENDANT January 11, 2024 B. DATE THE FED.R.CIV.P.26(F) CONFERENCE WAS HELD February 5, 2024 15 II. 16 17 18 19 20 21 DISCOVERY PLAN PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 26(f)(3) A. WHETHER CHANGES, IF ANY, SHOULD BE MADE IN TIMING, FORM, OR REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCLOSURE UNDER FED.R.CIV.P. 26(A) 1. Parties’ view: Two weeks after the Rule 16 conference or after the Court enters a scheduling 22 23 24 order. B. SUBJECTS ON WHICH DISCOVERY MAY BE NEEDED, WHEN DISCOVERY 25 SHOULD BE COMPLETED, AND WHETHER DISCOVERY SHOULD BE 26 CONDUCTED IN PHASES OR BE LIMITED TO OR FOCUSED ON 27 28 PARTICULAR ISSUES: 1 1. Parties’ view: 2 i. Discovery will consist of facts, documents and witnesses relating to 3 Plaintiff's claims for (a) unjust enrichment, (b) fraud, (c) Violation of NRS 4 205.380, (d) violation of NRS 598 et al., (e) negligent hiring, (f) negligent 5 6 training and supervision, (g) negligent retention, (h) violation of the 7 Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), and Defendant’s defenses 8 thereto. 9 ii. Discovery should be completed on October 2, 2024 allowing 265 days for 10 discovery. 11 iii. Discovery in this matter does not need to be conducted in phases. 12 13 C. WHETHER ISSUES EXIST REGARDING DISCLOSURE OR DISCOVERY OF 14 ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION, INCLUDING THE FORM OR 15 FORMS IN WHICH IT SHOULD BE PRODUCED 16 17 1. Parties’ view 18 The parties do not anticipate the need for electronically stored information at this 19 time. 20 21 D. WHETHER ISSUES EXIST REGARDING CLAIMS OF PRIVILEGE OR OF 22 23 PROTECTION AS TRIAL-PREPARATION MATERIALS, INCLUDING – IF 24 THE PARTIES AGREE ON A PROCEDURE TO ASSERT THESE CLAIMS 25 AFTER PRODUCTION – WHETHER TO ASK THE COURT TO INCLUDE 26 THEIR AGREEMENT IN AN ORDER UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 27 28 502. 1 2 3 1. Parties’ view: Not at this time. E. WHETHER, IF ANY, OTHER ORDERS SHOULD BE ENTERED BY THE 4 5 6 COURT UNDER RULE 26(C) OR RULE 16(B) AND (C) 1. Plaintiff’s view: 7 Not at this time. 8 2. Defendant’s view: 9 Defendant anticipates the need for a protective order in aid of discovery and will 10 11 circulate a proposed stipulation to Plaintiffs’ counsel regarding same. 12 III. 13 DISCOVERY PLAN AND MANDATORY DISCLOSURES PURSUANT TO LR 26-1(B) 14 A. A STATEMENT OF THE REASONS WHY LONGER OR DIFFERENT TIME 15 PERIODS SHOULD APPLY TO THE CASE OR, IN CASES IN WHICH THE 16 17 PARTIES DISAGREE AS TO THE FORM OR CONTENTS OF THE 18 DISCOVERY PLAN, A STATEMENT OF EACH PARTY’S POSITION ON 19 EACH POINT IN DISPUTE PURSUANT TO LR 26-1(a) 20 21 a. Plaintiff’s view: Plaintiff requests 265 days for discovery due to the number of plaintiffs/witnesses 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 who are elderly and the number of claims at issue. Extended discovery provides those elderly Parties additional time period to complete necessary discovery. b. Defendant’s view: Defendants agree that in this instance the proposed deadlines are necessary. 1 B. FORM OF STIPULATED DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER 2 PURSUANT TO LR 26-1(b)(1)-(6) 3 4 LR 26-1(b)(1-6) Deadlines Date 1. Discovery Cut-Off Date October 2, 2024 2. Amending the Pleadings and Adding Parties (LR 26-1(e)(2)) (Not later than 90 days before close of discovery) July 2, 2024 3. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) Disclosures (Experts) (Not later than 60 days before close of discovery) August 1, 2024 4. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) Rebuttal Disclosures (Not later than 30 days after initial disclosure of experts) September 3, 2024 5. Dispositive Motions (LR 26-1(e)(4)) (Not later than 30 days after Discovery cut-off date) November 1, 2024 6. Joint Pretrial Order and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) Disclosures (Not later than 30 days after dispositive-motion deadline) December 2, 2024 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C. CERTIFICATION OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION CONFERENCE The undersigned certify that they met and conferred about the possibility of using alternative dispute-resolution process. D. ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE DISPOSITION A jury trial has been demanded and the undersigned certify that they discussed whether the parties intend to present evidence in electronic format to jurors for the purposes of jury deliberations, and the following stipulations were reached regarding providing discovery in an electronic format compatible with the court’s electronic jury evidence display system: None at this time. 1 E. CERTIFICATION RE: ALTERNATIVE FORMS OF CASE DISPOSITION 2 3 The parties certify that they considered consent to trial by a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73 and the use of the Short Trial Program (General Order 4 5 2013-01). The parties do not consent to trial by a magistrate judge or use of the Short Trial 6 Program at this time. 7 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT: 8 9 DATED February 23, 2024 DATED February 23, 2024 10 11 12 Respectfully submitted, WUV FIRM LLC COPPERSMITH BROCKELMAN PLC 13 /s/ Westley U. Villanueva, Esq. 14 15 16 17 18 By: ___________________________ Westley U. Villanueva, Esq. NV State Bar No. 8708 6767 W Tropicana, 2nd Floor Las Vegas, NV 89103 Attorney for Plaintiffs /s/ Marvin C. Ruth, Esq. By: 19 20 21 22 23 ORDER IT IS SO ORDERED: 2/26/2024 DATED: __________________. 24 25 26 27 28 ______________________________________ UNTED COURT JUDGE UNITEDSTATES STATESDISTRICT MAGISTRATE JUDGE __________________________ Marvin C. Ruth, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 10979 2800 North Central Ave, Suite 1900 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Attorneys for Defendants
]]>
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.
