Lee v. MVW of Nevada, Inc., No. 2:2019cv01724 - Document 21 (D. Nev. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER granting 20 STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (Second Request) re Discovery Re: 18 Order. Discovery due by 12/30/2020. Motions due by 1/29/2021. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 7/6/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Lee v. MVW of Nevada, Inc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Doc. 21 DANIEL S. SIMON, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 4750 BENJAMIN J. MILLER, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 10406 SIMON LAW 810 S. Casino Center Blvd. Las Vegas, NV 89101 Telephone: 702-364-1650 Facsimile: 702-364-1655 lawyers@simonlawlv.com Attorneys for Plaintiff 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 10 MICHAELA LEE, Plaintiff, 11 14 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY (60 DAYS) (SECOND REQUEST) v. 12 13 CASE NO.: 2:19-CV-01724-RFB-NJK MVW OF NEVADA, INC. d/b/a MARRIOTT'S GRAND CHATEAU; DOE EMPLOYEE; DOES II through V and ROE CORPORATIONS VI through X, inclusive, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff MICHAELA LEE (“Plaintiff”), by and through her attorneys of record, Daniel S. 18 Simon, Esq., and Benjamin J. Miller, Esq., of the law firm SIMON LAW, and Defendant 19 MARRIOTT RESORTS HOSPITALITY CORP. (erroneously named as MVW of NEVADA, INC. 20 21 d/b/a MARRIOTT’S GRAND CHATEAU), by and through its attorneys of record JANICE M. MICHAELS, ESQ., ANALISE N.M. TILTON, ESQ., and KYLE J. HOYT, ESQ., of the law firm 22 23 24 25 WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP (collectively the “Parties”), hereby respectfully request and stipulate to a 60-day extension of all remaining deadlines pursuant to FRCP 26 as follows: 26 /// 27 28 LEGAL:05472-0479/14144046.1 Dockets.Justia.com Lee v. Marriott, et al. Case No.: 2:19-CV-01724-RFB-NJK 1 2 I. CURRENT DEADLINES: The current deadlines under the Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order dated 3 4 October 29, 2019 are as follows: • 5 • 6 • 7 8 All parties shall file motions to amend pleading or add parties on or before June 30, 2020; All parties shall make initial expert disclosures pursuant to FRCP 16.1(a)(2) on or before June 30, 2020; 9 • 10 11 All parties shall make rebuttal expert disclosures pursuant to FRCP 16.1(a)(2) on or before July 30, 2020; • 12 13 All parties shall complete discovery on or before October 30, 2020; II. All parties shall file dispositive motions no later than November 30, 2020. STATEMENT SPECIFYING THE DISCOVERY COMPLETED: 14 To date, the Parties have engaged in the following discovery: 15 16 17 18 19 • disclosures, or about March 9, 2020. • • 20 21 22 23 24 27 Defendants made their initial disclosures on or about November 27, 2019. Defendant propounded interrogatories, requests for admission and requests for production of documents to Plaintiff on January 31, 2020. • Plaintiff provided written responses to Defendant’s interrogatories, requests for admission and requests for production of documents on March 9, 2020. • 25 26 Plaintiffs made their initial disclosures on, about December 3, 2019 and first supplemental Plaintiff and Defendant stipulated to Plaintiff undergoing a Rule 35 examination, which was set for March 18, 2020 but was vacated due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. • Defendant provided written responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories, requests for admission and requests for production of documents on May 28, 2020. 28 LEGAL:05472-0479/14144046.1 -2- Lee v. Marriott, et al. Case No.: 2:19-CV-01724-RFB-NJK 1 2 STATEMENT OF DISCOVERY THAT REMAINS TO BE COMPLETED: 3 Discovery was proceeding in the normal course. The Parties had stipulated to a Rule 35 4 5 6 examination of Plaintiff and were intending to move forward with party depositions, expert disclosures, and expert and/or treating physician depositions. Notably, the parties sought its first 7 extension in light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the prohibition of any unessential in-person 8 matters with the expectation that in-person matters would likely resume in June of 2020. The parties 9 had set multiple depositions for early June of 2020. 10 III. REASONS WHY DISCOVERY WAS NOT COMPLETED: 11 As discussed above, the parties did not expect the pandemic to continue to the extent that it 12 13 has. The parties had depositions tentatively set for early June 2020 in order to comply with pending 14 expert disclosures and to finish all needed discovery. Unfortunately, the pandemic has continued to 15 cause significant delays and difficulties with conducting discovery. 16 Notably, a critical witness, Lee Rogers, is no longer employed by Defendant and Defense 17 counsel had encountered difficulties in communicating with him to coordinate his deposition. Further, 18 Defendant’s employee, Yoli Carrillo, another critical witness to the case, is on furlough and 19 Defendant’s Human Resources department is running at minimal capacity, thus causing further 20 21 difficulties in coordinating his deposition as well. 22 Further, the parties desired to conduct in-person depositions, including Plaintiffs’ depositions. 23 In light of the current pandemic and how severely it continues to impact Nevada and other states, the 24 parties are going to coordinate depositions through videoconferencing but still seek an extension of 25 26 time to do so. /// 27 28 /// LEGAL:05472-0479/14144046.1 -3- Lee v. Marriott, et al. Case No.: 2:19-CV-01724-RFB-NJK 1 2 3 The parties and their counsel have been very cooperative during discovery and agree that neither party will be prejudiced by the proposed extension, and that they may be prejudiced should 4 5 6 the current schedule remain in place. The parties submit that the delay is reasonable in the circumstances due to the unforeseen difficulties during the pandemic. Finally, the parties agree the 7 extension is sought in good faith. 8 IV. PROPOSED SCHEDULE: 9 Accordingly, the Parties agree to extend all discovery deadlines as follows: • 10 • 11 12 • 13 All parties shall complete discovery on or before December 30, 2020; All parties shall file motions to amend pleading or add parties on or before August 31, 2020; All parties shall make initial expert disclosures pursuant to FRCP 16.1(a)(2) on or before August 31, 2020; 14 • 15 16 All parties shall make rebuttal expert disclosures pursuant to FRCP 16.1(a)(2) on or before September 30, 2020; • 17 All parties shall file dispositive motions no later than January 29, 2021. 18 19 20 /// /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 27 28 /// /// LEGAL:05472-0479/14144046.1 -4- Lee v. Marriott, et al. Case No.: 2:19-CV-01724-RFB-NJK 1 2 3 Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby stipulated that the Court vacate the current deadlines as stated in the Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order, and that the Court issue a new order 4 5 6 7 setting the deadlines as set forth in this Stipulation and Order. Respectfully submitted this 2nd day of July, 2020. DATED this 2nd day of July, 2020. DATED this 2nd day of July, 2020. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 /s/ Benjamin J. Miller /s/ Kyle J. Hoyt Daniel S. Simon, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 4750 Benjamin J. Miller, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 10406 SIMON LAW 810 S. Casino Center Blvd. Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Attorneys for Plaintiff Analise N.M. Tilton, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 13185 Kyle J. Hoyt, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 14886 WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP 2881 Business Park Ct., Suite 200 Las Vegas, Nevada 89128 Attorneys for Defendant 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LEGAL:05472-0479/14144046.1 -5- Lee v. Marriott, et al. Case No.: 2:19-CV-01724-RFB-NJK 1 2 3 ORDER 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order is third amended 5 6 as follows: a. All parties shall complete discovery on or before December 30, 2020. b. All parties shall file initial expert disclosures on or before August 31, 2020. c. All parties shall file rebuttal expert disclosure on or before September 30, 2020. d. All parties shall file dispositive motions on or before January 29, 2021. 7 8 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 13 ____________________________________ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 Dated: ____________________________ July 6, 2020 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LEGAL:05472-0479/14144046.1 -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.
