El Al Israel Airlines, Ltd. v. Swissport USA, Inc., No. 2:2021cv00517 - Document 25 (D. Nev. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER granting 24 Stipulation - Discovery due by 4/2/2022. Motions due by 5/2/2022. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 6/2/2022. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 10/22/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
El Al Israel Airlines, Ltd. v. Swissport USA, Inc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Doc. 25 MARK J. CONNOT (10010) REX D. GARNER (9401) FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP 1980 Festival Plaza Drive, #700 Las Vegas, Nevada 8915 (702) 262-6899 tel (702) 597-5503 fax mconnot@foxrothschild.com rgarner@foxrothschild.com Attorneys for Plaintiff EL AL Israel Airlines, Ltd. 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 EL AL ISRAEL AIRLINES, LTD, 11 Plaintiff, v. 12 13 14 Case No.: 2:21-cv-00517-GMN-VCF STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES SWISSPORT USA, INC.; DOES I through X, inclusive; and ROE BUSINESS ENTITIES I through X, inclusive, (SECOND REQUEST) Defendants. 15 16 17 Pursuant to Local Rule IA 26-3, Plaintiff EL AL Israel Airlines, Ltd. (“Plaintiff” or “EL 18 AL”) and Defendant SWISSPORT USA, INC. (“Swissport”) stipulate to extend the deadlines in 19 the order dated August 6, 2021 (ECF No. 19). As provided herein, good cause supports this 20 request. 21 I. 22 The completed discovery. A. 23 24 25 26 Discovery completed by Plaintiff 1. Written Discovery and Disclosures Date Description Response 6.17.2021 Plaintiff El Al Israel Airlines, Ltd.’s Initial Disclosures Pursuant to FRCP 26 N/A 27 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Date Description Response 2 9.3.2021 Plaintiff El Al Israel Airlines, Ltd.’s First Supplemental Initial Disclosures Pursuant to FRCP 26 N/A 9.27.2021 Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Responses due 10.27.2021 9.27.2021 Plaintiff’s First Set of Document Requests to Defendant Responses due 10.27.2021 10.5.2021 Plaintiff El Al Israel Airlines, Ltd.’s Second Supplemental Initial Disclosures Pursuant to FRCP 26 N/A 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 B. Discovery completed by Defendants 11 1. Written Discovery and Disclosures 12 13 14 15 Date Description Response 6.17.2021 Defendant Swissport USA, Inc.’s Initial Disclosures Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1) N/A 7.21.2021 Swissport USA, Inc.’s Interrogatories to El Al Israel Airlines, Ltd. Responses done 9.3.2021 7.21.2021 Swissport USA, Inc.’s Requests for Production to El Al Israel Airlines, Ltd. [Set One] Responses done 9.3.2021 10.19.2021 Defendant Swissport USA, Inc.’s First Supplemental Disclosures Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1) N/A 16 17 18 19 20 2. 21 Subpoenas 22 Date Description Recipient 23 7.20.2021 Subpoena to Produce Documents U.S. Airline Services, LLC 7.20.2021 Subpoena to Produce Documents Clark County Department of Aviation 7.20.2021 Subpoena to Produce Documents Nevada Airline Services, LLC 24 25 26 27 28 Page 2 of 6 1 For each of the subpoenas, Swissport requested the non-parties respond by August 2, 2021. 2 Swissport received documents in response to the subpoena to Clark County Department of 3 Aviation and produced them on October 19, 2021. Swissport expected to receive documents from 4 US Airline Services on October 15, 2021 but has not yet received them. Swissport is also awaiting 5 word from Nevada Airline Services to determine if it is an affiliate/subsidiary of US Airline 6 Services such that a single response/production to the subpoena will suffice. 7 3. 8 9 10 Depositions The parties anticipate noticing depositions shortly after completion of written discovery and document productions. II. Discovery that remains to be completed. 11 Plaintiff is supplementing its responses to Swissport’s written discovery with newly 12 available evidence from internal and outside sources. Plaintiff also awaits responses by the end of 13 October (barring any courtesy extensions) to the written discovery it sent to Swissport. Swissport 14 also awaits responses to the subpoenas served upon U.S. Airline Services, LLC and Nevada Airline 15 Services, LLC. The parties will review those responses/documents to determine if additional 16 written discovery and/or subpoenas need to be served. 17 The parties anticipate noticing the depositions of certain witnesses listed in each other’s 18 disclosures, including percipient witnesses to the incident, investigators of the incident, and Rule 19 30(b)(6) representatives. 20 21 Expert and rebuttal expert disclosures/depositions also remain. III. The reasons why the remaining discovery was not completed within the time limits 22 imposed by the discovery plan 23 Based on pre-answer requests from the Court and responses thereto, the parties did not file 24 their discovery plan with the Court until the presumptive 180-day period had nearly expired. The 25 parties have been working diligently to fully respond to discovery requests that have been served 26 on one another, and have granted professional courtesies on brief extensions to same. 27 28 Page 3 of 6 1 The targets of Swissport’s subpoenas have been slow to respond, and brief 2 accommodations have been extended as professional courtesies. Both parties, including many 3 employees, offices, representatives, and their counsel continue to work remotely based on the 4 pandemic, which causes delay in the time needed to gather necessary documents and information 5 for disclosures and for responses to discovery requests. 6 discovery from the parties and non-parties have delayed the commencement of depositions and the 7 preparation of expert reports. Delays associated with document 8 Local Rule 26-3 governs modifications or extensions of the scheduling order. Pursuant to 9 LR 26-3, any motion or stipulation to extend discovery must be received by the Court “no later 10 than twenty-one (21) days before the expiration of the subject deadline.” LR 26-3 further states 11 that “a request made within 21 days of the subject deadline must be supported by a showing of 12 good cause.” 13 The parties recognize that they are requesting an extension of certain deadlines within 21 14 days of the expiration of the November 3, 2021, deadline to disclose expert witnesses and reports. 15 As such, the parties submit that, based on the above delays beyond their control, good cause exists 16 to permit granting the instant requested extension. In evaluating “good cause” this Court has held 17 “[t]he ‘good cause’ standard in Local Rule 26-3 is the same as the standard governing modification 18 of the scheduling order under Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b).” Tanya Victor v. Walmart, Inc., No. 2:20-cv- 19 0101591, 2021 WL 3745190, at *2 (D. Nev. Apr. 8, 2021). Good cause to extend the discovery 20 deadlines is found where “it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking 21 the extension.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). In the 22 present matter, as noted, the parties’ efforts have been hampered by non-parties’ failure to comply 23 with subpoenas and provide responsive documents despite service of subpoenas in early August. 24 Responsive documents should have been disclosed by the non-parties in early September but, as 25 stated herein, the parties are still waiting for responses from U.S. Airline Services, LLC and 26 Nevada Airline Services, LLC. 27 28 Page 4 of 6 1 Here, the extension request is made in good faith as certain discovery deadlines could not 2 be met due to the actions of non-parties, the request is advanced jointly by the parties, and not for 3 the purposes of delay. Trial in this matter has not yet been set. Moreover, since this request is a 4 joint request, neither party will be prejudiced. 5 This request for an extension of deadlines is not sought for any improper purpose or other 6 purpose of delay. Rather, it is sought by the parties solely for the purpose of allowing sufficient 7 time to conduct discovery, disclose expert witnesses, and adequately prepare their respective cases 8 for trial. 9 The parties respectfully submit that the reasons set forth above constitute compelling 10 reasons for the extension and that the failure to act was the product of excusable neglect. 11 IV. 12 The proposed schedule for completing all remaining discovery. Event Current Deadline Proposed Deadline October 4, 2021 N/A 14 Amending and Adding Parties 15 Initial Expert Disclosures November 3, 2021 February 1, 2022 16 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures December 3, 2021 March 3, 2022 17 Close of Discovery January 2, 2022 April 2, 2022 Dispositive Motions February 2, 2022 May 2, 2022 Pretrial Order (including FRCP 26(a)(3) disclosures) March 3, 2022, or 30 days after the resolution of the final dispositive motion or further order by the court June 2, 2022 13 18 19 20 21 22 23 [ATTORNEY SIGNATURE BLOCK AND ORDER ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 24 25 26 27 28 Page 5 of 6 1 DATED this 22nd day of October, 2021 DATED this 22nd day of October, 2021 2 FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP WILEY PETERSEN /s/ Rex D. Garner MARK J. CONNOT, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 10010 REX D. GARNER, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 9401 1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 700 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 mconnot@foxrothschild.com rgarner@foxrothschild.com /s/ Jason M. Wiley JASON M. WILEY, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 9274 ROBERT J. CALDWELL, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 7637 1050 Indigo Drive, Suite 200-B Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 jwiley@wileypetersenlaw.com rcaldwell@wileypetersenlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff El Al Israel Airlines, Ltd. Attorneys for Defendant Swissport USA, Inc. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED: 13 DATED: 14 15 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 Dated this 22nd day of October, 2021 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page 6 of 6 127295574
]]>
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.
