Ruiz et al v. Stewart Title Company et al, No. 2:2017cv00944 - Document 16 (D. Nev. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER granting 15 Stipulation re Discovery Deadlines. Discovery due by 6/18/2018. Motions due by 7/18/2018. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 8/29/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 12/28/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Ruiz et al v. Stewart Title Company et al Doc. 16 Case 2:17-cv-00944-RFB-CWH Document 15 Filed 12/27/17 Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 Douglas D. Gerrard, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 4613 dgerrard@gerrard-cox.com John M. Langeveld, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 11628 jlangeveld@gerrard-cox.com GERRARD COX & LARSEN 2450 St. Rose Parkway, Suite #200 Henderson, NV 89074 Telephone: (702) 796-4000 Facsimile: (702) 796-4848 Attorneys for Defendant STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 10 Case No. 2:17-cv-00944-RFB-CWH Plaintiffs, 12 vs. 13 STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, a Texas corporation; STEWART TITLE COMPANY, a Texas Corporation; DOE DEFENDANTS 1 through 10; and ROE ENTITIES 1 through 10. 2450 St. Rose Parkway, Suite 200 Henderson, Nevada 89074 (702) 796-4000 GERRARD, COX & LARSEN 11 ROBERT NUNEZ RUIZ, an Individual; and TERESA LYNN RUIZ, an Individual, 14 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES [SECOND REQUEST] 19 Pursuant to Local Rules IA 6-1 and 26-4, and all applicable authority, Plaintiffs ROBERT 20 NUNEZ RUIZ and TERESA LYNN RUIZ (collectively, "RUIZ"), by and through their attorneys, 21 Frizell Law Firm, PLLC, and Defendant STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY ("STGC"), 22 by and through its attorneys, Gerrard Cox Larsen, hereby stipulate and agree, subject to approval 23 by the Court, to amend the current discovery plan and scheduling order, as set forth in the Order 24 Granting First Stipulation for Extension of Time, dated October 24, 2017 [ECF No. 14], as further 25 set forth herein: 26 27 28 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:17-cv-00944-RFB-CWH Document 15 Filed 12/27/17 Page 2 of 6 1 I. STATEMENT PURSUANT TO LR 26-4: 2 A. Discovery Completed To Date. 3 (i). 4 RUIZ served their Initial Disclosures on October 14, 2017. 5 STGC served its Initial Disclosures on September 13, 2017. 6 RUIZ served its First Set of Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for 7 Admission to STGC on October 19, 2017. The Parties put a great deal of time an effort into their Initial and Supplemental 8 9 10 Initial Discovery: Disclosures. The Parties have already identified about 10-pages' worth of potential witnesses, and collectively have produced over 900 pages' worth of documents. (ii). 12 On October 24, 2017, this Court entered its Order Granting First Stipulation for Extension 2450 St. Rose Parkway, Suite 200 Henderson, Nevada 89074 (702) 796-4000 GERRARD, COX & LARSEN 11 Discovery Completed After The Court’s First, 90-day Discovery Extension. 13 of Time, whereby the Court granted the Parties’ stipulation to extend the discovery period by 90 14 days. [ECF No. 14]. Since that date, the Parties have been diligently engaged in discovery, and 15 have completed the following additional discovery: 16 STGC served its First Supplemental Disclosures on December 11, 2017. 17 STGC served RUIZ with responses to RUIZ’s written discovery requests on December 11, 18 2017. 19 STGC served its Second Supplemental Disclosures on December 22, 2017. 20 STGC served its First Set of Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for 21 Admission to RUIZ on December 22, 2017. No other discovery has been commenced or completed in this case. 22 23 B. Discovery That Remains to Be Completed. 24 1. RUIZ responding to STGC’s written discovery requests. 25 2. The depositions of STGC and ROBERT RUIZ and TERESA RUIZ. 26 3. The depositions of the witnesses identified by the parties (most of which are expected to take place in Hawaii). 27 28 4. Disclosures of expert witnesses and reports. 2 Case 2:17-cv-00944-RFB-CWH Document 15 Filed 12/27/17 Page 3 of 6 1 5. Depositions of expert witnesses. 2 6. Subpoenas and relevant documents and things held by third parties (most of which are located in Hawaii). 3 4 C. Reasons Why The Discovery Cannot be Completed Per the Current Discovery Scheduling Order. 5 The current discovery cut-off is not until March 30, 2018. Therefore, technically the 6 parties still have time to conduct discovery, even under the old cut-off date. However, the 7 discovery identified in Section C, above, has not been completed because the parties have not had 8 enough time to do so. This is true in part, because, as the Court is aware, at the outset of this case, 9 the parties were engaged in negotiations with respect to the dismissal of claims against a former 10 Defendant, Stewart Title Company. That former Defendant was represented by the same counsel 11 2450 St. Rose Parkway, Suite 200 Henderson, Nevada 89074 (702) 796-4000 GERRARD, COX & LARSEN representing Stewart Title Guaranty Company. After some due diligence, the parties were able to 12 reach an agreement to dismiss the former Defendant. Related thereto, the parties entered into a 13 tolling agreement dated September 14, 2017, and Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the former 14 Defendant on October 19, 2017 [ECF No. 12]. In an attempt to keep costs down, at the outset of 15 the case, the Parties had been focusing on these negotiations as opposed to conducting what may 16 have turned out to be unnecessary discovery. 17 In addition, the Parties require additional time to complete the discovery identified in 18 Section C because of the unique circumstances of this case. Many of the facts and events 19 surrounding this dispute occurred outside of Nevada, in rural Hawaii (Puakenikeni, Pahoa, 20 Hawaii). Because the events occurred in Hawaii, the parties need additional time to retain expert 21 witnesses who are either located in Hawaii, or who may be available to travel to Hawaii, to 22 investigate the facts and circumstances surrounding the dispute in this case. Both parties have 23 already made efforts to retain an expert witness in this case, and those efforts are ongoing. The 24 Parties expect to retain and disclose their own respective expert witnesses shortly. 25 The parties also need additional time to subpoena relevant documents and things held by 26 third parties located in Hawaii. Previous efforts by the Parties in this case have focused on 27 identifying those third parties which might be in possession of relevant information. The Parties 28 3 Case 2:17-cv-00944-RFB-CWH Document 15 Filed 12/27/17 Page 4 of 6 1 expect to serve discovery and deposition subpoenas on various third parties within the next couple 2 of weeks. 3 Further, and probably most notably, the parties need additional time to notice and 4 coordinate together with regard to scheduling depositions of various witnesses, which will take 5 place in Hawaii. Because travel to Hawaii will be expensive, the Parties expect to coordinate 6 together and have these depositions occur on successive days. This will require coordinating dates 7 and availability with every witness that the parties will be deposing. Accordingly, good cause exists to extend the discovery deadlines. This stipulation for an 8 9 extension of the deadlines is not made for purposes of delay, but rather to permit the parties an opportunity to complete discovery to support their claims and defenses. 11 D. Proposed Schedule For Completing All Remaining Discovery. So that the foregoing discovery may be completed before the discovery deadlines, the 12 2450 St. Rose Parkway, Suite 200 Henderson, Nevada 89074 (702) 796-4000 GERRARD, COX & LARSEN 10 13 parties propose a 90-day extension of the Discovery Deadlines as follows: 14 Description of Deadline Old Date New Date 15 Discovery Cut-Off 3/20/2018 06/18/2018 16 Initial Expert Disclosures 1/19/2018 04/19/2018 17 Interim Status Report 1/19/2018 04/19/2018 18 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures 2/19/2018 05/21/2018 19 Dispositive Motions 4/19/2018 07/18/2018 20 Joint Pre-Trial Order 5/21/2018 08/29/20181 21 Extensions or Modification of the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. LR 26-4 22 governs modifications or extensions of this Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. Any stipulation 23 or motion to extend a deadline set forth in the discovery plan and scheduling order must be made 24 not later than twenty-one (21) days before the subject deadline. 25 26 27 28 1 The Parties request that, in the event the Court's decision on any pending motion to dismiss has not been made, or if additional dispositive motions are filed, the date for filing the joint pretrial order be suspended until thirty (30) days after a decision on the dispositive motions. This is consistent with the terms of the Court's original Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (filed Aug. 8, 2017) [Doc. 9]. 4 Case 2:17-cv-00944-RFB-CWH Document 15 Filed 12/27/17 Page 5 of 6 1 As set forth above, the soonest discovery deadline in this case, which the parties seek to 2 modify, is the Initial Expert Disclosures deadline, currently set for January 19, 2018. Thus, the 3 deadline to extend the Initial Expert Disclosures Deadline is currently December 29, 2017. 4 Accordingly, this stipulation is timely filed and complies with LR 26-4, as it is filed prior to 5 December 29, 2017. 6 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 7 DATED this 27th day of December, 2017. FRIZELL LAW FIRM, PLLC 8 GERRARD COX LARSEN 9 10 12 2450 St. Rose Parkway, Suite 200 Henderson, Nevada 89074 (702) 796-4000 GERRARD, COX & LARSEN 11 13 /s/ John M. Langeveld, Esq. Douglas D. Gerrard, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 4613 John M. Langeveld, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 11628 2450 St. Rose Parkway, Suite 200 Henderson, NV 89074 Attorneys for Defendant STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY /s/ R. Duane Frizell, Esq. R. Duane Frizell, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 9807 400 N. Stephanie St. Suite 265 Henderson, Nevada 89014 Phone: (702) 657-6000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs ROBERT NUNEZ RUIZ, and TERESA LYNN RUIZ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 /// 27 /// 28 5 Case 2:17-cv-00944-RFB-CWH Document 15 Filed 12/27/17 Page 6 of 6 1 ORDER 2 Having reviewed the foregoing Stipulation of the Parties, and finding good, just, and 3 4 sufficient cause therefor, it its hereby entered as an Order of the Court. IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 December 28, 2017 DATED:________________________ 7 8 _________________________________________ 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE CASE NO.: 2:17-cv-00944-RFP-CWH 10 12 Respectfully submitted by: 13 GERRARD COX LARSEN 14 /s/ John M. Langeveld, Esq. Douglas D. Gerrard, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 4613 John M. Langeveld, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 11628 2450 St. Rose Parkway, Suite 200 Henderson, NV 89074 Attorneys for Defendant STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY 2450 St. Rose Parkway, Suite 200 Henderson, Nevada 89074 (702) 796-4000 GERRARD, COX & LARSEN 11 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.
