Wood v. Carl's Jr. et al, No. 2:2020cv02329 - Document 55 (D. Nev. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER granting 54 Extension of Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. Discovery due by 1/17/2022. Motions due by 2/16/2022. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 3/18/2022. The parties are advised, however, that the Court does not intend to grant additional discovery extensions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler on 9/8/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS)

Download PDF

Wood v. Carl&#039;s Jr. et al Doc. 55 Case 2:20-cv-02329-APG-BNW Document 55 54 Filed 09/08/21 09/07/21 Page 1 of 9 1 JOSH COLE AICKLEN Nevada Bar No. 7254 2 JESSELYN V. DE LUNA Nevada Bar No. 15031 3 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 6385 S. Rainbow Boulevard, Suite 600 4 Las Vegas, Nevada 89118 TEL: 702.893.3383 5 FAX: 702.893.3789 josh.aicklen@lewisbrisbois.com 6 jesselyn.deluna@lewisbrisbois.com Attorneys for Defendant 7 BTO INVESTMENTS, INC. 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 11 HOLLY MARIE WOOD, an individual, CASE NO. 2-20-cv-02329-APG-BNW 12 Plaintiff, 13 vs. 14 CARL’S JR., operated and owned by BTO 15 INVESTMENTS, a Delaware corporation; S.L. INVESTMENTS, a Nevada 16 corporation; CKE RESTAURANTS, INC., a Delaware corporation; CARL’S JR. 17 RESTAURANTS, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; CARL KARCHER 18 ENTERPRISES, INC., a foreign corporation; CKE RESTAURANTS 19 HOLDINGS, INC., a foreign corporation; RUCEY MOLINA CRUZ, an individual; 20 DOES 1 through 10, inclusive; ROE CORPORATIONS/ENTITIES 1 through 10, 21 inclusive; AMENDED STIPULATED DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER (SECOND REQUEST) SPECIAL SCHEDULING REVIEW REQUESTED Defendants. 22 23 24 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 26 and Local Rule 26-1, the 25 26 parties in this action submit the following Amended Stipulated Discovery Plan and 27 Scheduling Order (Second Request) subject to the Court’s review and approval: LEWIS 28 /// BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 4846-9716-7865.1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:20-cv-02329-APG-BNW Document 55 54 Filed 09/08/21 09/07/21 Page 2 of 9 1 I. 2 INITIAL MATTERS 3 A. Meeting Between The Parties’ Counsel 4 Pursuant to FRCP 26(f), the undersigned parties, by and through their respective 5 counsel, conferred on June 10, 2021. Paul S. Padda, Esq. represented Plaintiff Holly 6 Marie Wood; Bruce Young, Esq. represented Defendant BTO Investments, Inc.; Karie N. 7 Wilson, Esq. represented Defendants Carl’s Jr. Restaurants, LLC, CKE Restaurants 8 Holdings, Inc., CKE Restaurants, Inc., and Carl Karcher Enterprises, Inc. (hereinafter, the 9 “CKE Defendants”); and David T. Gluth II, Esq. represented S.L. Investments. S.L. 10 Investments filed an Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint on March 25, 2021, after the Court 11 entered its original Scheduling Order (ECF No. 30) on February 25, 2021. 12 B. The Parties’ Position On Alternative Dispute Resolution 13 The parties hereby certify that they communicated regarding the possibility of 14 resolution of this case through means of alternative dispute resolution (i.e. arbitration, 15 mediation, early neutral evaluation). An Early Neutral Evaluation session was held in this 16 case on March 10, 2021 (ECF No. 36) but was unsuccessful. Mediation was initially set 17 for September 27, 2021, but is in the process of being rescheduled. 18 C. The Parties’ Position On Trial By United States Magistrate Judge And/Or Short Trial Program 19 20 21 22 23 Under FRCP 73, a United States Magistrate Judge may “conduct a civil action or proceedings” if “all parties consent.” The parties, by and through their respective counsel, are in agreement that this case should proceed on the normal track with the currently assigned United States District Judge presiding. II. 24 DISCOVERY COMPLETED 25 26 27 LEWIS 28 The parties have conducted the following discovery to date: 1. Plaintiff served her Initial Disclosures on March 3, 2021; 2. Defendant BTO Investments, Inc. served its Initial Disclosures on March 5, BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 4846-9716-7865.1 2 Case 2:20-cv-02329-APG-BNW Document 55 54 Filed 09/08/21 09/07/21 Page 3 of 9 1 2021; 2 3. CKE Defendants served their Initial Disclosures on March 3, 2021; 3 4. Defendant BTO Investments, Inc. propounded its First Set of Interrogatories 4 and First Set of Requests for Production to Plaintiff on March 25, 2021; 5 5. Plaintiff served her First Supplement to Initial Disclosures on April 26, 2021; 6 6. Plaintiff served her Responses to Defendant BTO Investments, Inc.’s First 7 Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production on April 26, 2021; 8 7. Plaintiff propounded her First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of 9 Requests for Production to Defendant BTO Investments, Inc. on April 27, 2021; 10 8. CKE Defendants served their First Supplement to Initial Disclosures on April 11 30, 2021; 12 9. CKE Defendants propounded their First Set of Interrogatories and First Set 13 of Requests for Production to Plaintiff on June 10, 2021; 14 10. Defendant S.L. Investments served Initial Disclosures on June 19, 2021; 15 11. Defendant BTO Investments, Inc. served its First Supplement to Initial 16 Disclosures on June 25, 2021; 17 12. Defendant BTO Investments, Inc. served its Responses to Plaintiff’s First 18 Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production on June 25, 2021; 19 13. Plaintiff served her Responses to the CKE Defendants’ First Set of 20 Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production on July 12, 2021; 21 14. Plaintiff propounded her Second Set of Interrogatories to Defendant BTO 22 Investments, Inc. on July 28, 2021; 23 15. Plaintiff propounded her First Set of Requests for Production to Defendant 24 S.L. Investments on July 28, 2021; 25 16. Defendant S.L. Investments propounded its First Set of Requests for 26 Admissions to Defendant BTO Investments, Inc. on August 6, 2021; and 27 LEWIS 17. Defendant BTO Investments, Inc. served its Responses to Plaintiff’s Second 28 Set of Interrogatories on August 27, 2021. BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 4846-9716-7865.1 3 Case 2:20-cv-02329-APG-BNW Document 55 54 Filed 09/08/21 09/07/21 Page 4 of 9 1 III. 2 AREAS OF DISCOVERY 3 The undersigned parties agree that the areas of discovery should include, but not 4 be limited to, all claims and defenses permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 5 including issues of liability and damages. 6 IV. 7 DISCOVERY DEADLINES 8 Local Rule 26-1(b)(1) provides that “unless otherwise ordered, discovery periods 9 longer than one hundred and eighty (180) days from the date the first defendant answers 10 or appears will require special scheduling review.” On February 23, 2021, the Court 11 granted the parties’ Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order, approving the 12 parties’ request for a 240-day discovery period, as reasonable and necessary, in light of 13 the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. (Doc. 30). On June 25, 2021, the Court granted 14 the parties’ Amended Plan and Scheduling Order, approving the parties’ request that an 15 additional 90 days be added to the discovery period, for a total of 330 days, based on 16 certain extenuating circumstances, including the unsuccessful Early Neutral Evaluation 17 on March 10, 2021 leading to the entry of Defendant S.L. Investments into the suit, the 18 withdrawal of CKE Defendants’ former attorneys and the appearance of their current 19 attorneys, the pending service of Defendant Rucey Molina Cruz, written discovery 20 extensions, the continuation of Plaintiff’s deposition, the anticipated need for the 21 depositions of additional fact witnesses and Plaintiff’s treating physicians, and inadvertent 22 errors in the calculation of the original Order. (Doc. 48). 23 The parties now propose that an additional 60 days be added to the 330-day 24 discovery period, for a total of 390 days. The parties have been diligently working to 25 complete discovery in accordance with the current deadlines. However, certain factors 26 have necessitated an extension of the current deadlines. 27 LEWIS First, the parties have agreed to mediate the case. Mediation was initially set for 28 September 27, 2021, but is in the process of being rescheduled. This extension will BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 4846-9716-7865.1 4 Case 2:20-cv-02329-APG-BNW Document 55 54 Filed 09/08/21 09/07/21 Page 5 of 9 1 afford the parties additional time to consider opportunities for early settlement without 2 incurring unnecessary discovery costs. 3 Second, Defendant BTO Investment Inc. has a new handling attorney. Defendant 4 BTO Investments, Inc. is represented by the law firm Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, 5 LLP. The original handling attorney, Bruce C. Young, Esq., left the firm. The case was 6 internally reassigned to Josh Cole Aicklen and Jesselyn V. De Luna. 7 Third, Plaintiff has not yet been able to effectuate service of the Summons and 8 Complaint on Defendant Rucey Molina Cruz. Plaintiff therefore sought and was granted 9 additional time to effectuate service. The Court’s Order dated May 5, 2021, extended 10 service upon Defendant Rucey Molina Cruz “up to and including 180 days from [the] 11 Order,” or until November 1, 2021. (Doc. 44). 12 Fourth, the parties also anticipate the need for the deposition of additional fact 13 witnesses, including former employees of the restaurant where Plaintiff was previously 14 employed. Some of these witnesses may be difficult to locate as several were teenagers 15 or young adults who stopped working for Defendant BTO in 2018, nearly three years ago. 16 In addition, Plaintiff is seeking emotional distress damages and damages for alleged 17 future medical care and the parties therefore anticipate the need for depositions of 18 Plaintiff’s treating physicians including, but not limited to, physicians at UMC Trauma, Dr. 19 Norton Roitman, Dr. Ruth Ramirez, and Dr. Ron Zedek. Coordinating these depositions 20 and accommodating the work and vacation schedules for the witnesses and the attorneys 21 involved is expected to necessitate additional discovery time. 22 For all these reasons, the parties respectfully request that the applicable discovery 23 deadlines be extended an additional 60 days. Upon a showing of good cause, this Court 24 is authorized to modify the discovery schedule. See, FRCP 6(b)(1)(A); LR 26-4. “The 25 district court may modify the pretrial schedule if it cannot reasonably be met despite the 26 diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 27 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). Based upon the date the first Defendant answered or LEWIS 28 otherwise appeared (December 23, 2020) (Doc. 1), the undersigned parties hereby BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 4846-9716-7865.1 5 Case 2:20-cv-02329-APG-BNW Document 55 54 Filed 09/08/21 09/07/21 Page 6 of 9 1 propose the following discovery schedule pursuant to the LR 26-1 (April 17, 2020): 2 3 Current Discovery Plan & Scheduling Order Event Proposed Amended Discovery Plan & Scheduling Order Current Deadline Proposed Deadline November 18, 2021 (Thursday) January 17, 2022 (Monday) 4 5 Discovery Cut-Off 6 [390 Days from date first defendant answers or appears – LR 26-1 (b)(1)] 7 8 9 10 11 Amending Pleadings Adding Parties August 20, 2021 (Friday) October 19, 2021 (Tuesday) [90 Days Before Close of Discovery – LR 26-1(b)(2)] 12 13 14 Initial Expert Disclosures September 20, 2021 (Monday) November 18, 2021 (Thursday) [60 Days Before Close of Discovery – LR 26-1(b)(3)] 15 16 17 18 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures October 20, 2021 (Wednesday) December 20, 2021 (Monday) [30 days after the Initial Disclosure of Experts - LR 26-1(b)(3) is a Saturday, 12/18/21] 19 20 21 22 Dispositive Motions December 20, 2021 (Monday) February 16, 2022 (Wednesday) 23 [30 Days After Close of Discovery – LR 26-1(b)(4)] 24 25 26 Pre-Trial Order January 19, 2022 March 18, 2022 [30 Days After the Dispositive Motion Deadline - LR 26-1(b)(5)] 27 LEWIS 28 BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 4846-9716-7865.1 6 Case 2:20-cv-02329-APG-BNW Document 55 54 Filed 09/08/21 09/07/21 Page 7 of 9 With respect to the Pre-Trial Order, if dispositive motions are filed, the deadline for 1 2 filing a Joint Pre-Trial Order will be suspended until 30-days after a decision on the 3 dispositive motion(s) is/are rendered or until further Court notice. See Local Rule 26-1 4 (b)(5). 5 V. 6 DISCOVERY DEADLINES If the Court has questions regarding the dates proposed by the parties, the parties 7 8 request an opportunity for a conference with the Court before entry of this proposed 9 amended Scheduling Order. If the Court does not have questions, the parties do not 10 request a conference with the Court. All written discovery previously served with 11 responses that are otherwise outstanding shall not be affected by any subsequent 12 amended Order, unless the parties agree otherwise in writing. 13 VI. 14 EXTENSIONS OR MODIFICATIONS OF DISCOVERY DATES This Court’s Local Rule 26-3 governs modifications or extensions of this Discovery 15 16 Plan and Scheduling Order. According to the rule, “[a]ll motions or stipulations to extend 17 a deadline set forth in a discovery plan shall be received by the court no later than twenty18 one (21) days before the expiration of the subject deadline.” 19 VII. 20 FORMAT OF DISCOVERY Pursuant to the electronic discovery amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil 21 22 Procedure effective December 1, 2006, the undersigned parties addressed the e23 discovery issues pertaining to the format of discovery at the FRCP 26(f) conference. The 24 parties agree that to the extent electronic discovery is requested or produced, such 25 discovery shall be carried out in accordance with the procedures set forth in FRCP 34(b) 26 and 26(b). 27 /// LEWIS 28 /// BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 4846-9716-7865.1 7 Case 2:20-cv-02329-APG-BNW Document 55 54 Filed 09/08/21 09/07/21 Page 8 of 9 1 VIII. 2 DISCOVERY DISPUTES 3 All discovery disputes in this case shall be governed by the provisions of Local 4 Rule 26-6. The parties agree to employ good faith efforts to resolve all discovery 5 disputes prior to seeking intervention by the Court. 6 IX. 7 PRESENTATION OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE TO A JURY 8 The parties certify that they communicated whether they intend to present 9 evidence in electronic format to jurors for the purpose of jury deliberations. At this time, 10 the parties have not made any stipulations regarding providing discovery in an electronic 11 format compatible with the Court’s electronic jury evidence display system. 12 13 Respectfully Submitted by: Respectfully Submitted by: 14 PAUL PADDA LAW LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH 15 /s/ Paul S. Padda /s/ Josh Cole Aicklen 16 PAUL S. PADDA, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 10417 17 TONY L. ABBATANGELO, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 3897 18 4560 S. Decatur Boulevard, Ste. 300 Las Vegas, Nevada 89103 19 Attorneys for Plaintiffs JOSH COLE AICKLEN Nevada Bar No. 7254 JESSELYN V. DE LUNA Nevada Bar No. 15031 6385 S. Rainbow Boulevard, Suite 600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89118 Attorneys for Defendant BTO Investments, Inc. 20 Dated: September 7, 2021. Dated: September 7, 2021. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 LEWIS 28 BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 4846-9716-7865.1 8 Case 2:20-cv-02329-APG-BNW Document 55 54 Filed 09/08/21 09/07/21 Page 9 of 9 Wood v. Carl’s Jr., et al. 1 2:20-cv-02329-APG-BNW 2 3 Respectfully Submitted by: Respectfully Submitted by: ALVERSON TAYLOR & SANDERS GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP 4 5 /s/ Karie N. Wilson 6 /s/ Rachel L. Wise______________ KARIE N. WILSON 7 Nevada Bar No. 7957 6605 Grand Montecito Parkway #200 8 Las Vegas, Nevada 89149 ROBERT LARSEN Nevada Bar No. 7785 RACHEL L. WISE Nevada Bar No. 12303 300 S. Fourth Street, Suite 1550 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Attorneys for Defendants CKE 9 Restaurants, Inc., Carl’s Jr. Restaurants, LLC, Carl Karcher Enterprises, Inc., CKE 10 Restaurant Holdings, Inc. 11 Dated: September 7, 2021. Attorneys for Defendant S.L. Investments Dated: September 7, 2021. 12 13 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED: 16 __ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 DATED: 19 20 Order IT IS ORDERED that ECF No. 54 is GRANTED. The parties are advised, however, that the Court does not intend to grant additional discovery extensions. 21 22 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED 25 DATED: 9:36 am, September 08, 2021 26 27 LEWIS BRENDA WEKSLER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 4846-9716-7865.1 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.