Zurich American Insurance Company v. Aspen Specialty Insurance Company, No. 2:2020cv01374 - Document 26 (D. Nev. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER granting 25 Amended Stipulation (First Request) - Discovery due by 3/30/2022. Motions due by 4/4/2022. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 5/4/2022. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts on 6/21/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Zurich American Insurance Company v. Aspen Specialty Insurance Company Doc. 26 Case 2:20-cv-01374-APG-DJA Document 25 Filed 06/18/21 Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 MICHAEL EDWARDS. ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 6281 RYAN A. LOOSVELT, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 8550 MESSNER REEVES LLP 8945 W. Russell Road, Suite 300 Las Vegas, Nevada 89148 Telephone: (702) 363-5100 Facsimile: (702) 363-5101 medwards@messner.com rloosvelt@messner.com Attorneys for Defendant Aspen Specialty Insurance Company 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 11 ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 vs. ASPEN SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO.: 2:20-cv-01374-APG-DJA AMENDED STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY (FIRST REQUEST) 17 Pursuant to Local Rules IA 6-1 and 26-3, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED 18 by and between ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY (“Plaintiff”) and ASPEN 19 SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY (“Defendant”) that the current discovery deadlines be 20 21 22 extended in the above referenced matter. This is the first stipulation to extend discovery deadlines. I. BACKGROUND 23 This case was filed on September 9, 2020. This insurance coverage dispute arises out of 24 the alleged failure of Defendant to provide proper defense and its refusal to settle an underlying 25 personal injury claim within policy limits related to injuries sustained by Steven and Melissa 26 Cochran, which occurred at the Marquee Nightclub (“Marquee”) in The Cosmopolitan Hotel and 27 28 Casino (“Cosmopolitan”). As the general liability policy insurer for the Cosmopolitan, Plaintiff {05291781 / 1}1 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY CASE NO.: 2:20-cv-01374-APG-DJA Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:20-cv-01374-APG-DJA Document 25 Filed 06/18/21 Page 2 of 8 1 2 brings claims against Defendant for subrogation, contribution, and indemnification against Defendant, the general liability policy insurer for the Marquee. 3 Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint on October 27, 2020 (Doc. 7). 4 Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss on December 1, 2020, and Defendant filed 5 6 its Reply on January 5, 2021. (Doc. Nos. 11, 18). The Motion having been fully briefed, the parties are awaiting a ruling from the Court. As such, no answer has been filed in this action. 7 On April 1, 2021, the parties met and conferred to discuss the scope of discovery, issues 8 9 involving disclosures, discovery and preservation of electronically stored information, and 10 potential claims of privilege. Subsequently, on April 21, 2021, the parties submitted their 11 Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order, requesting special scheduling review (Doc. No. 12 21). The Court denied the Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order without prejudice, 13 stating the parties failed to demonstrate adequate reason for the lengthy discovery period of 384 14 days requested therein (Doc. No. 22). At that time, the Court ordered that discovery begin and 15 16 17 provided a scheduling order whereby initial expert disclosures would be due three months after the date of the April 30, 2021 Order. See id. 18 The parties subsequently filed a Stipulation and Order to Extend Discovery (First Request) 19 and for Defendant to Serve Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Request for 20 Production of Documents (“First Stipulation”), requesting a six-month extension of the discovery 21 deadlines set by the Court on April 30, 2021. (Doc. No. 23). The Court denied the First Stipulation 22 without prejudice for failure to comply with the requirements of Local Rule 26-3, and ordered that 23 24 any subsequent stipulation to extend discovery deadlines comply with the provisions of LR 26-3. 25 (Doc No. 24). The parties file this Amended Stipulation and Order to Extend Discovery in 26 compliance with the Court’s directives. 27 /// 28 /// {05291781 / 1}2 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY CASE NO.: 2:20-cv-01374-APG-DJA Case 2:20-cv-01374-APG-DJA Document 25 Filed 06/18/21 Page 3 of 8 1 II. On December 4, 2020, Plaintiff propounded its First Set of Requests for Production, and 2 3 Defendant served its responses on January 6, 2021. 4 5 6 DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO DATE On May 26, 2021, Plaintiff served its initial disclosures. III. DISCOVERY THAT REMAINS TO BE COMPLETED The parties will produce and supplement their FRCP 16.1 disclosures as necessary and 7 8 9 appropriate, as additional information and documentation are made available in the course of discovery. Specifically, the parties intend to obtain and produce the pleadings, motions, and other 10 papers on file in the underlying action and to subpoena non-privileged files in the underlying case, 11 including defense files, non-privileged communications, and related records, as well as their own 12 claims files and other non-party insurer claims files. Defendant is collecting information and 13 documentation regarding the underlying personal injury action to fully evaluate Plaintiff’s alleged 14 injuries and reviewing the same for privilege prior to serving its initial production. Documents 15 16 17 may need to be produced subject to a Stipulated Protective Order, as to be negotiated by the parties and approved by the Court. 18 Prior to disclosing expert reports, the parties anticipate that numerous depositions will be 19 taken, including, but not limited to, percipient witnesses to the underlying personal injury action, 20 each other’s Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses, non-party insurance representatives and underlying defense 21 counsel, including counsel from the law firms of Cohen & Padda, Eglet Adams, Hall Jaffe & 22 Counsel, and Resnick & Louis. It is anticipated that issues regarding privilege will arise within the 23 24 course of discovery that will require resolution. 25 The parties need to designate initial experts and exchange reports after depositions are 26 taken. The parties will then need to conduct the depositions of Plaintiff’s Expert(s) and 27 Defendant’s Expert(s). 28 {05291781 / 1}3 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY CASE NO.: 2:20-cv-01374-APG-DJA Case 2:20-cv-01374-APG-DJA Document 25 Filed 06/18/21 Page 4 of 8 Defendant intends to serve written discovery requests on Plaintiff, and Plaintiff may serve 1 2 additional written discovery as needed. 3 IV. 4 5 6 REASONS FOR NOT COMPLETING DISCOVERY The parties respectfully request this extension to allow written discovery and depositions to take place prior to the initial expert disclosure deadline. This is an alleged subrogation action amongst insurers concerning alleged damages for payments made in an underlying action. This 7 8 9 discovery extension is requested based on the complexity of this case, delays associated with the COVID-19 crisis, and the need for discovery prior to initial expert designations and reports. 10 The volume of discovery necessary in a high stakes insurance subrogation case with 11 significant damages at issue makes it challenging to obtain the information and conduct all 12 necessary depositions in time to serve expert disclosures under the standard deadlines, and the 13 parties submit the issues in the case and volume of discovery necessary in a case like this 14 constitutes good cause to extend the deadlines. The parties acknowledge they were slow to start 15 16 discovery while awaiting a ruling on the still-pending Motion to Dismiss that seeks potentially 17 dispositive relief, but intend to complete discovery diligently moving forward to meet the 18 extended deadlines. 19 Additionally, good cause exists to extend the discovery deadlines given the inherent 20 difficulties and delays necessarily associated with completing discovery during the Covid-19 crisis 21 22 23 24 earlier in this litigation. Since March 2020, Nevada has been under various Emergency Directives from the Nevada Governor’s Office due to the Covid-19 crisis, and the United States District Court for the District of Nevada also issued a series of general orders to address the Court’s efforts 25 to mitigate the spread of Covid-19, including orders affecting most aspects of civil litigation. 26 Statewide Directives restricting normal business and public activities began to lift on or around 27 March 2021, and jury trials were recently ordered to resume in the District of Nevada on March 8, 28 2021. See, e.g. Fourth Amended Temporary General Order 2020-03. As restrictions are being {05291781 / 1}4 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY CASE NO.: 2:20-cv-01374-APG-DJA Case 2:20-cv-01374-APG-DJA Document 25 Filed 06/18/21 Page 5 of 8 1 2 lifted and business is moving forward again, the parties anticipate that discovery will now proceed within the normal course. 3 The parties are working to complete discovery within the time period set forth in the initial 4 scheduling order, and this is the first request for extension of discovery deadlines. However, due 5 6 to restrictions and constraints on counsel, the parties agree that the current discovery deadlines provide insufficient time to complete the remaining discovery, and would impose undue time and 7 8 9 economic burdens on all parties, particularly given the imminent initial expert disclosure deadline. For example, under the current deadlines, initial expert disclosures would need to be served before 10 all party depositions have been completed, which would result in unnecessary supplemental 11 reports, increasing costs to the parties to obtain rush or rough draft deposition transcripts for their 12 experts to review. In particular, the initial expert deadline needs to be extended to allow experts to 13 review documents in the preparation of their reports and to render their opinions after receiving 14 the remaining discovery. Accordingly, additional time is needed to conduct the requisite 15 16 17 discovery, investigation, and preparation to ensure that his matter is properly adjudicated on the merits. 18 Given the size of this litigation and the issues at stake, and the necessary discovery 19 remaining to be completed, the parties respectfully request that the Court order an extension of the 20 existing deadlines, as proposed below. 21 V. PROPOSED MODIFICATION 22 Based on the foregoing, the parties jointly seek a modification of the current deadlines as 23 24 25 follows: 1. Current Deadlines: 26 Fact discovery cut-off date September 28, 2021 27 Amend the pleading and add parties June 30, 2021 Initial expert disclosures July 30, 2021 28 {05291781 / 1}5 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY CASE NO.: 2:20-cv-01374-APG-DJA Case 2:20-cv-01374-APG-DJA Document 25 Filed 06/18/21 Page 6 of 8 Rebuttal expert disclosures August 30, 2021 2 Dispositive motions October 28, 2021 3 Proposed joint pretrial order November 30, 2021 1 4 5 2. Proposed Deadlines: Amend the pleading and add parties June 30, 2021 Fact discovery cut-off date March 30, 2022 Initial expert disclosures January 3, 2022 Rebuttal expert disclosures February 3, 2022 10 Dispositive motions April 4, 2022 11 Joint pretrial order May 4, 2022 6 7 8 9 12 13 This request is made in good faith and not for the purposes of delay. IT IS SO STIPULATED. 14 15 16 17 DATED this 18th day of June, 2021 DATED this 18th day of June, 2021 MESSNER REEVES LLP MORALES FIERRO & REEVES /s/ Michael M. Edwards_______________ /s/ William Reeves ________________ MICHAEL EDWARDS. ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 6281 RYAN A. LOOSVELT, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 8550 8945 W. Russell Road, Suite 300 Las Vegas, Nevada 89148 Attorneys for Defendant Aspen Specialty Insurance Company RAMIRO MORALES Nevada Bar No. 7101 WILLIAM REEVES Nevada Bar No. 8235 600 S. Tonopah Dr., Suite 300 Las Vegas, NV 89106 Attorneys for Plaintiff Zurich American Insurance Company 18 19 20 21 22 23 ORDER 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 ___________________________________ UNITED STATES STATES DISTRICT JUDGE UNITED MAGISTRATE JUDGE June 21, 2021 DATED: ___________________________ 27 28 {05291781 / 1}6 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY CASE NO.: 2:20-cv-01374-APG-DJA Case 2:20-cv-01374-APG-DJA Document 25 Filed 06/18/21 Page 7 of 8 1 2 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that I am an employee of Messner Reeves LLP and that on this 18th day of June, 2021, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing AMENDED STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY (FIRST REQUEST) to all parties on file: 4 5 6 7 Ramiro Morales, Esq William Reeves, Esq MORALES, FIERRO, & REEVES 600 S. Tonopah Drive, Suite 300 Las Vegas, Nevada 89106 Attorneys for Plaintiff Zurich American Insurance Company 8 9 10 11 [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] Hand Delivery FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION U.S. MAIL, POSTAGE PREPAID CM/ECF E-Filing Service System Electronic Mail 12 /s/ Laurie Moreno An Employee of Messner Reeves LLP 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 {05291781 / 1}CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE CASE NO.: 2:20-cv-01374-APG-DJA Case 2:20-cv-01374-APG-DJA Document 25 Filed 06/18/21 Page 8 of 8 Laurie Moreno From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: William Reeves <wreeves@mfrlegal.com> Friday, June 18, 2021 2:49 PM Laurie Moreno Michael Edwards; Desja Wilder; Ryan A. Loosvelt; Stephanie Bedker RE: Zurich v. Aspen (Cochran) You are so authorized. Thanks. William C. Reeves MORALES • FIERRO • REEVES 2151 Salvio Street, Suite 280 Concord, CA 94520 (925) 288 1776 From: Laurie Moreno [mailto:LMoreno@messner.com] Sent: Friday, June 18, 2021 2:46 PM To: William Reeves Cc: Michael Edwards; Desja Wilder; Ryan A. Loosvelt; Stephanie Bedker Subject: RE: Zurich v. Aspen (Cochran) Sent on behalf of Michael M. Edwards Good afternoon, Attached please find the Amended Stipulation and Order to Extend Discovery for your review. Please advise if we have your authority to affix your electronic signature on the Stipulation. Thank you. Laurie Moreno Legal Assistant Messner Reeves LLP 8945 W. Russell Road | Suite 300 Las Vegas, NV 89148 702.363.5100 main | 702.363.5101 fax LMoreno@messner.com messner.com From: Ryan A. Loosvelt <RLoosvelt@messner.com> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2021 4:52 PM To: William Reeves <wreeves@mfrlegal.com> Cc: Michael Edwards <medwards@messner.com>; Desja Wilder <DWilder@messner.com>; Laurie Moreno <LMoreno@messner.com> Subject: Re: Zurich v. Aspen (Cochran) We plan to circulate a draft of a revised stipulation tomorrow with the contents/discovery parameters the court referenced in its order on the prior stip. Please let us know if you will not be around tomorrow to review. Thanks, 1
]]>
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.
