TPOV Enterprises 16, LLC v. Paris Las Vegas Operating Company, LLC, No. 2:2017cv00346 - Document 90 (D. Nev. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER granting 89 Stipulation. Discovery due by 5/9/2019. Motions due by 9/6/2019. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 10/6/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 3/19/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
TPOV Enterprises 16, LLC v. Paris Las Vegas Operating Company, LLC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 James J. Pisanelli, Esq., Bar No. 4027 JJP@pisanellibice.com Debra L. Spinelli, Esq., Bar No. 9695 DLS@pisanellibice.com M. Magali Mercera, Esq., Bar No. 11742 MMM@pisanellibice.com Brittnie T. Watkins, Esq., Bar No. 13612 BTW@pisanellibice.com PISANELLI BICE PLLC 400 South 7th Street, Suite 300 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Telephone: 702.214.2100 Attorneys for Paris Las Vegas Operating Company, LLC 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 11 PISANELLI BICE PLLC 400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300 LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101 Doc. 90 12 TPOV ENTERPRISES 16, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, vs. 14 PARIS LAS VEGAS OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY (Sixth Request) Plaintiff, 13 15 CASE NO. 2:17-cv-00346-JCM-VCF Defendant. PARIS LAS VEGAS OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, vs. Counterclaimant. TPOV ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, TPOV ENTERPRISES 16, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Rowen Siebel, an individual. Counter-defendants. 25 26 Plaintiff/Counterdefendants TPOV Enterprises 16, LLC ("TPOV 16"), TPOV Enterprises, 27 LLC ("TPOV"), and Rowen Seibel ("Seibel") and Defendant/Counterclaimant Paris Las Vegas 28 Operating Company, LLC ("Paris") by and through their undersigned counsel of record, request an 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 order modifying the parties' Joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order, (ECF No. 17), as amended 2 November 3, 2017 (ECF No. 47), May 10, 2018 (ECF No. 55), November 13, 2018 (ECF No. 68), 3 and February 6, 2019 (ECF 84). This is the sixth stipulation to extend discovery. In compliance 4 with LR IA 6-1 and LR 26-4, the parties submit as follows: 5 6 7 8 9 10 PISANELLI BICE PLLC 400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300 LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1. STATEMENT OF DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO DATE. The parties both served their initial disclosures on June 12, 2017. Paris served its first supplemental disclosures on June 14, 2017. TPOV 16 served its first supplemental disclosures on June 20, 2017. On September 22, 2017, the parties exchanged proposed search terms for electronic discovery. On October 4, 2017, the parties met and conferred on proposed search terms. On October 12, 2017, the parties exchanged revised search terms for electronic discovery. On October 12, 2017, the parties met and conferred on revisions to the proposed search terms. On October 23, 2017, TPOV 16 provided further revisions to search terms for electronic discovery. On October 31, 2017, Paris represented to TPOV 16 that Paris would be 19 proceeding with running TPOV 16's search terms for electronic discovery and 20 would present preliminary results to TPOV 16 in the near future. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 On November 9, 2017 TPOV 16 served its First Set of Request for Production of Documents on Paris. On December 4, 2017 TPOV 16 served its First Set of Interrogatories on Paris. On December 13, 2017, Paris served its Reponses to TPOV 16's First Set of Request for Production of Documents. On January 9, 2017, Paris served its Responses to TPOV 16's First Set of Interrogatories. 28 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PISANELLI BICE PLLC 400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300 LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 On January 16, 2018, TPOV 16 issued a subpoena to third-party Trisha Thompson. • On January 16, 2018, TPOV 16 issued a subpoena to third-party Markita Thompson. On February 1, 2018, Trisha Thompson served her objections to TPOV 16's subpoena. On February 1, 2018, Markita Thompson served her objections to TPOV 16's subpoena. On February 9, 2018, Paris requested additional revisions to the proposed search terms due to the volume of results. On February 12, 2018, TPOV 16 provided further revisions to search terms for electronic discovery. On February 22, 2018, Paris proposed categories of documents to respond to TPOV 16's discovery requests. On February 28, 2018, Paris served its First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Seibel. On February 28, 2018, Paris served its First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to TPOV. On February 28, 2018, Paris served its First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to TPOV 16. On March 2, 2018, TPOV 16 agreed to Paris' proposed categories of documents to respond to TPOV 16's discovery requests. On April 3, 2018, TPOV served its Response to Paris' First Set of Requests for Production of Documents. On April 3, 2018, TPOV 16 served its Response to Paris' First Set of Requests for Production of Documents. On April 3, 2018, Seibel served his Response to Paris' First Set of Requests for Production of Documents. 28 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PISANELLI BICE PLLC 400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300 LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On April 4, 2018, Paris filed a Motion to Stay Pending Resolution of Parallel State Court Action (ECF No. 49). On April 4, 2018, TPOV 16 requested to provide categories of documents to respond to Paris' discovery requests. On April 4, 2018, Paris responded to TPOV 16's request regarding proposed categories of documents to respond to Paris' discovery requests. On April 6, 2018, TPOV and Seibel served their first production of documents. On May 4, 2018, Paris served its second supplemental disclosures. On May 7, 2018, Paris served its First Supplemental Responses to TPOV 16's First Set of Interrogatories. On May 24, 2018, TPOV 16 filed its Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories (ECF No. 56). On June 21, 2018, the Court granted, in part, and denied, in part, TPOV 16's Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories (ECF No. 64). On July 12, 2018, Paris served its Second Supplemental and Amended Responses to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories. On August 3, 2018, TPOV and Seibel served eight (8) notices of deposition on Paris. On August 3, 2018, TPOV and Seibel served its Second Supplemental Initial Disclosures. On October 19, 2018, Paris served its Third Supplemental and Amended Responses to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories. On October 22, 2018, the Court denied Paris' Motion to Stay Pending Resolution of Parallel State Court Action (ECF No. 65). On December 5, 2018, TPOV 16 served its First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Paris. On December 5, 2018, TPOV 16 issued a subpoena to third-party Gordon Ramsay. On December 5, 2018, TPOV 16 issued a subpoena to third-party Gordon Ramsay Holdings, Ltd. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PISANELLI BICE PLLC 400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300 LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 On December 12, 2018, TPOV 16 filed its Motion to Compel Responses to Subpoenas Duces Tecum (ECF No. 69). On December 12, 2018, Trisha Thompson and Markita Thompson filed their Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoenas or for Protective Order (ECF No. 71). On December 13, 2018, TPOV 16 served its third supplemental disclosures. On December 20, 2018, Paris served its First Set of Requests for Admission to TPOV. On December 20, 2018, Paris served its First Set of Requests for Admission to Rowen Seibel. On December 20, 2018, Paris served its First Set of Interrogatories to TPOV 16. On December 20, 2018, Paris served its First Set of Interrogatories to TPOV. On December 20, 2018, Paris served its First Set of Interrogatories to Rowen Seibel. On December 31, 2018, Gordon Ramsay served his objections to TPOV 16's subpoena. On December 31, 2018, Gordon Ramsay Holdings, Ltd. served its objections to TPOV 16's subpoena. On January 4, 2019, Paris served its responses to TPOV 16's Second Set of Requests for the Production of Documents. On January 22, 2019, TPOV served its responses to Paris' first set of requests for admission. On January 22, 2019, Rowen Seibel served his responses to Paris' first set of requests for admission. On January 22, 2019, TPOV 16 served its responses to Paris' first set of interrogatories. On January 22, 2019, TPOV served its responses to Paris' first set of interrogatories. 28 5 1 2 3 4 5 interrogatories. The parties filed their Joint Interim Status Report on February 11, 2019. On January 24, 2019, Paris served its fourth supplemental disclosures. On February 28, 2019 Paris and nonparties Trisha Thompson and Markita 6 Thompson served declarations to TPOV 16 pursuant to the Court's Order entered 7 on January 29, 2019 (ECF 83). 8 9 10 11 PISANELLI BICE PLLC 400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300 LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101 On January 22, 2019, Rowen Seibel served his responses to Paris' first set of 2. On March 5, 2019, TPOV, TPOV 16, and Seibel served their final supplemental disclosures. The parties have also discussed scheduling dates for 20 witnesses1: SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF DISCOVERY THAT REMAINS TO BE 12 COMPLETED. 13 The parties anticipate completing the production of documents, serving privilege logs, 14 propounding and responding to additional written discovery, conducting depositions, engaging in 15 expert discovery, and conducting third-party document and deposition discovery. 16 3. DISCOVERY REMAINING CANNOT BE COMPLETED WITHIN THE TIME 17 LIMITS SET BY THE DISCOVERY PLAN. 18 Initially, the parties agreed to extend the discovery cut-off deadline because a stay order was 19 in place from the outset of the action. (ECF No. 23.) In particular, this Court's order provided for a 20 stay of all discovery except initial disclosures and jurisdictional discovery. The stay was lifted on 21 July 5, 2017, when the Court ruled on Paris' Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 30.) Since the stay was 22 lifted, the parties entered into a Stipulated Protocol Governing Production of Electronically Stored 23 Informed (ESI) and a Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order. (See ECF No. 26 24 and ECF No. 29.) Additionally, the parties have exchanged search terms, continued to make rolling 25 productions of supplemental documents, served and responded to written discovery, met and 26 conferred on multiple occasions to resolve discovery disputes, engaged in motion practice regarding 27 28 1 The parties reserve all rights as to specific objections to these depositions. 6 PISANELLI BICE PLLC 400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300 LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101 1 discovery disputes, and begun discussing and noticing depositions. In addition, on or about August 2 9, 2018, the parties agreed to attempt to resolve this action, as well as a number of related actions 3 through mediation. The mediation was held on October 12, 2018. This action was not resolved. 4 The parties previously agreed to tiered discovery, so that expert discovery would proceed 5 after fact discovery was completed. To that end, the parties are in the process of scheduling 20 6 depositions before the close of fact discovery. While scheduling is ongoing, there are several factors 7 that have hampered the parties' efforts, including the witnesses' availability, the location of the 8 witnesses (several witnesses are located outside of the jurisdiction and will require travel), and 9 counsel's availability. In order to allow sufficient time to complete fact discovery, the parties 10 propose extending the present deadlines by 30 days to provide both parties with the time needed to 11 complete fact discovery in advance of expert discovery. 12 4. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING REMAINING DISCOVERY. 13 The parties have agreed to a fact discovery cut-off date of May 9, 2019 and an expert 14 discovery cut-off date of July 8, 2019, with corresponding deadlines as follows: 15 Current Deadline Date Proposed Deadline Date 16 Fact Discovery Cut-off April 9, 2019 May 9, 2019 17 April 10, 2018 No Change 18 Amend Pleadings/Add Parties Expert Disclosures May 9, 2019 June 7, 2019 19 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures June 7, 2019 July 8, 2019 20 Dispositive Motions August 9, 2019 September 6, 2019 21 Interim Status Report February 11, 2019 No Change 22 Pre-Trial Order September 6, 2019 October 6, 2019 23 24 25 If dispositive motions are filed, the joint pre-trial order shall be due thirty (30) days from the entry of the court's rulings on the motions or by further order of the court. See LR 26-1(b)(5). 26 27 28 7 PISANELLI BICE PLLC 400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300 LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101 1 5. 2 A stipulation to extend discovery deadlines must be supported by a showing of good cause. 3 LR 26-4; Branch Banking & Tr. Co. v. D.M.S.I., LLC, 871 F.3d 751, 764 (9th Cir. 2017). "The good 4 cause inquiry focuses primarily on the [parties'] diligence." Derosa v. Blood Sys., Inc., No. 2:13-CV- 5 0137-JCM-NJK, 2013 WL 3975764, at *1 (D. Nev. Aug. 1, 2013) (citation omitted). If, despite the 6 parties' diligence, discovery cannot reasonably be completed within the deadlines, good cause to 7 extend discovery exists. Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). Where 8 an extension is requested less than twenty-one (21) days before expiration of a deadline, a showing 9 of excusable neglect must be made. LR 26-4; Derosa, 2013 WL 3975764, at *1. "[W]hether neglect 10 is excusable is an equitable [question] that depends on at least four factors: (1) the danger of prejudice 11 to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the 12 reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith." Bateman v. U.S. Postal Serv., 13 231 F.3d 1220, 1223–24 (9th Cir. 2000); Derosa, 2013 WL 3975764, at *1 (applying Rule 60(b)(1)'s 14 definition of excusable neglect to LR 26-4). GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO EXTEND TIME TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY. 15 The parties have been diligent in pursuing discovery. As stated above, a stay order prohibited 16 the parties from doing all but producing initial disclosures and engaging in jurisdictional discovery. 17 Since the stay was lifted and the previous scheduling order was entered, the parties have agreed to 18 the form of production for ESI, refined specific search terms in furtherance of ESI production, served 19 thousands of pages of documents, propounded to and responded to written discovery, engaged in 20 meet and confers regarding certain discovery disputes, engaged in motion practice regarding 21 discovery disputes, and served deposition notices. Additionally, the parties agreed to a mediation in 22 October 2018 to attempt resolve this action as well as related action. After the mediation was 23 unsuccessful, the parties are reengaging in discovery. Despite the diligence of all parties, the parties 24 have determined that more time than originally anticipated is necessary to complete fact discovery. 25 Indeed, despite the parties' diligence, discovery cannot reasonably be completed within the 26 deadlines, and good cause to extend discovery deadlines exists. 27 28 8 1 Any neglect assigned to the parties is excusable. First, there is no danger of prejudice. Both 2 parties agree that it is in their best interests to extend discovery deadlines. Second, the length of the 3 delay will not substantively impact the proceedings as the parties have been and continue to actively 4 conduct discovery. Third, the parties' delay in submitting the stipulation is excusable as they have 5 continued to actively engage in discovery. Finally, this proposed Stipulation and Order to extend 6 deadlines for discovery is made in good faith, with good cause, and not for purposes of unduly 7 delaying discovery or trial. Therefore, the parties respectfully request that this Court grant the 8 requested discovery extension. 9 DATED this 18th day of March, 2019. DATED this 18th day of March, 2019. PISANELLI BICE PLLC MCNUTT LAW FIRM, P.C. 10 PISANELLI BICE PLLC 400 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 300 LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101 11 12 13 14 15 16 By: /s/ M. Magali Mercera By: /s/ Dan McNutt James J. Pisanelli, Esq., Bar No. 4027 Dan McNutt, Esq., Bar No. 7815 Debra L. Spinelli, Esq., Bar No. 9695 Matthew Wolf, Esq., Bar No. 10801 M. Magali Mercera, Esq., Bar No. 11742 625 S. 8th Street Brittnie T. Watkins, Esq., Bar No. 13612 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 400 South 7th Street, Suite 300 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 CERTILMAN BALIN ADLER & HYMAN, LLP Attorneys for Paris Las Vegas Operating Company, LLC 17 18 19 Attorneys for TPOV Enterprises 16, LLC, TPOV Enterprises, LLC and Rowen Seibel 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 By: /s/ Joshua Feldman Paul Sweeney, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice) Joshua Feldman, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice) Nicole Milone, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice) 90 Merrick Avenue, 9th Floor East Meadow, New York 11554 ORDER IT IS SO ORDERED. ______________________________________ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 3-19-2019 DATED: ___________________________ 27 28 9
]]>
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.
