Sanguinetti v. Nevada Restaurant Services, Inc., No. 2:2021cv01768 - Document 83 (D. Nev. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER granting 82 Stipulation to Extend Discovery Deadlines. Discovery due by 12/21/2023. Motions due by 1/22/2024. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 2/21/2024. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts on 7/13/2023. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - RGDG)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Sanguinetti v. Nevada Restaurant Services, Inc. 6 J. RANDALL JONES, ESQ. (#1927) r.jones@kempjones.com MICHAEL J. GAYAN, ESQ. (#11135) m.gayan@kempjones.com MONA KAVEH, ESQ. (#11825) m.kaveh@kempjones.com KEMP JONES, LLP 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, 17th Floor Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 Telephone: (702) 385-6000 Facsimile: (702) 385-6001 7 Attorneys for Defendant 1 2 3 4 5 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 11 KEMP JONES, LLP 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway Seventeenth Floor Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 (702) 385-6000 • Fax (702) 385-6001 kjc@kempjones.com Doc. 83 SARA SANGUINETTI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Plaintiffs, 12 13 14 vs. NEVADA RESTAURANT SERVICES, INC., 15 Case No.: 2:21-cv-01768-RFB-DJA STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES [SECOND REQUEST] Defendant. 16 17 RAYMOND D. SPEIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; 18 Plaintiffs, 19 vs. 20 NEVADA RESTAURANT SERVICES, INC., 21 22 Consolidated With: 2:21-cv-01780-RFB-EJY Defendant. 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dockets.Justia.com KEMP JONES, LLP 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway Seventeenth Floor Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 (702) 385-6000 • Fax (702) 385-6001 kjc@kempjones.com 1 In accordance with LR IA 6-1, LR 26-1, and LR 26-3, Defendant Nevada Restaurant 2 Services, Inc. (“Defendant”), and Plaintiffs David Dietzel, Raymond D. Speight, Sara 3 Sanguinetti, Patricia Saavedra, and Nina S. Kuhlmann (“Plaintiffs”), by and through their counsel 4 of record, hereby stipulate and agree, subject to this Court’s approval, to extend the discovery 5 deadlines by 90 days. This stipulation is being entered into in good faith, not for the purpose of 6 delay, and good cause exists for the extension. An extension of the discovery deadlines is 7 necessary due to the following reasons: (1) Plaintiffs noticed the deposition of Defendant’s FRCP 8 30(b)(6) witness, and the parties are in the process of noticing additional fact witness depositions. 9 The parties believe it is important that the fact witnesses have their depositions taken before the 10 expert disclosures and reports are due, which is an additional basis for the requested extension. 11 The parties have been in communication on these matters and Defendant filed a motion for 12 protective order related to the FRCP 30(b)(6) deposition on June 30, 2023. ECF No. 77. The 13 parties would like to resolve these matters prior to the disclosure of expert witnesses as the Court’s 14 ruling on these matters would affect the discovery scope and topics in this case1; (2) although the 15 parties have been moving forward with discovery unless the Court orders otherwise, Defendant’s 16 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Pursuant to FRCP 12(h)(3) (ECF Nos. 17 66, 67), as well as Defendant’s Motion to Stay the Case pending the outcome of the Motion to 18 Dismiss (ECF Nos. 71, 72), are pending before the Court. These rulings would potentially impact 19 the discovery schedule and overall case; (3) Defendant’s Objection to the Scheduling Order 20 and/or Motion to Stay Discovery are also pending before this Court, which seek a ruling on the 21 bifurcation of discovery (ECF Nos. 54, 55). This ruling would potentially impact the discovery 22 schedule, scope of discovery, and the scope of the parties’ expert disclosures2; and (4) the parties 23 have engaged in settlement discussions and request additional time for discovery in an effort to 24 25 26 27 28 1 On July 3, 2023, the Court stayed the FRCP 30(b)(6) deposition of Defendant pending the Court’s determination of Defendant’s motion for protective order. ECF No. 78. 2 By entering into this stipulation, Defendant is not waiving any of its arguments or positions set forth in any of its pending briefs. 1 1 avoid incurring additional fees and costs while those efforts are pending. This is the second 2 request for an extension of these deadlines. 3 I. DISCOVERY THAT HAS BEEN COMPLETED 4 The parties have completed the following discovery: 5 1. Plaintiffs served their initial Rule 26(a) disclosures on September 13, 2022; 6 2. Defendant served its initial Rule 26(a) disclosures on September 9, 2022; 7 3. Plaintiffs served requests for admissions, interrogatories, and requests for production upon Defendant on September 14, 2022; 8 9 4. production upon each Plaintiff on September 22, 2022; 10 KEMP JONES, LLP 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway Seventeenth Floor Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 (702) 385-6000 • Fax (702) 385-6001 kjc@kempjones.com 11 Defendant served requests for admission, interrogatories, and requests for 5. Plaintiffs (except Plaintiff Saavedra) served their responses to Defendant’s 12 requests for admission, interrogatories, and requests for production on November 13 18, 2022; 14 6. Defendant served its responses to Plaintiffs’ requests for admission, interrogatories, and requests for production on November 18, 2022; 15 16 7. The parties participated in a meet-and-confer on discovery on February 21, 2023; 17 8. A stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order was entered in this case on March 9, 2023 (ECF No. 62); 18 19 9. Defendant served its first supplemental responses to Plaintiffs’ requests for admission on March 22, 2023; 20 21 10. Defendant served its unredacted interrogatory responses on March 22, 2023; 22 11. Defendant served its First Supplement to Initial Disclosures Pursuant to FRCP 23 26(a)(1)(A), along with over 1,300 pages of documents, on March 29, 2023. 24 Defendant also produced a privilege log on the same date; 25 12. Tecum upon CRA International, Inc. on May 26, 2023; 26 27 28 Plaintiffs served Defendant with a Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoena Duces 13. Plaintiffs served Defendant with a Notice of Videotaped Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of Defendant Nevada Restaurant Services, Inc. on May 26, 2023; 2 14. 1 2, 2023, and exchanged correspondence relating to the same; 2 15. 3 30(b)(6) Deposition of Defendant Nevada Restaurant Services, Inc. on June 15, 5 2023; 16. Defendant filed a Motion to Stay Case Pending Determination of Subject Matter Jurisdiction on June 21, 2023 (ECF No. 71); 7 17. 8 KEMP JONES, LLP Defendant served Plaintiffs with an Objection to the Notice of Videotaped Rule 4 6 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway Seventeenth Floor Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 (702) 385-6000 • Fax (702) 385-6001 kjc@kempjones.com The parties held a meet-and-confer relating to various discovery matters on June The parties held a meet-and-confer relating to Plaintiffs’ Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) 9 Deposition of Defendant Nevada Restaurant Services, Inc. on June 22, 2023. 10 Plaintiffs agreed to reschedule the deposition date, so Defendant could file a 11 Motion for Protective Order relating to the same. The parties are hoping to obtain 12 guidance from the Court on the disputed matters prior to the deposition date and 13 prior to disclosing expert witnesses; 18. 14 June 23, 2023; and 15 19. 16 Defendant filed its Motion for Protective Order Regarding Plaintiffs’ Notice of FRCP 30(b)(6) Deposition on June 30, 2023. ECF No. 77. 17 18 CRA International, Inc. served an Objection to the Subpoena Duces Tecum on II. DISCOVERY TO BE COMPLETED 19 The remaining discovery to be conducted by the parties includes: (1) the parties intend to 20 name initial and rebuttal expert witnesses, (2) depose fact and expert witnesses, (3) continue to 21 produce and collect additional documents, (4) and reserve their right to complete further written 22 discovery or name additional witnesses as may become necessary. 23 III. REASONS WHY THE REMAINING DISCOVERY WAS NOT COMPLETED 24 Good cause exists for an extension of the discovery deadlines. As indicated above, an 25 extension of the discovery deadlines is necessary due to the following reasons: (1) Plaintiffs 26 noticed the deposition of Defendant’s FRCP 30(b)(6) witness, and the parties are in the process 27 of noticing additional fact witness depositions. The parties believe it is important that the fact 28 witnesses have their depositions taken before the expert disclosures and reports are due, which is 3 KEMP JONES, LLP 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway Seventeenth Floor Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 (702) 385-6000 • Fax (702) 385-6001 kjc@kempjones.com 1 an additional basis for the requested extension. The parties have been in communication on these 2 matters and Defendant filed a motion for protective order related to the FRCP 30(b)(6) deposition 3 on June 30, 2023. ECF No. 77. The parties would like to resolve these matters prior to the 4 disclosure of expert witnesses as the Court’s ruling on these matters would affect the discovery 5 scope and topics in this case3; (2) although the parties have been moving forward with discovery 6 unless the Court orders otherwise, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter 7 Jurisdiction Pursuant to FRCP 12(h)(3) (ECF Nos. 66, 67), as well as Defendant’s Motion to Stay 8 the Case pending the outcome of the Motion to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 71, 72), are pending before 9 the Court. These rulings would potentially impact the discovery schedule and overall case; (3) 10 Defendant’s Objection to the Scheduling Order and/or Motion to Stay Discovery are also pending 11 before this Court, which seek a ruling on the bifurcation of discovery (ECF Nos. 54, 55). This 12 ruling would potentially impact the discovery schedule, scope of discovery, and the scope of the 13 parties’ expert disclosures; and (4) the parties have engaged in settlement discussions and request 14 additional time for discovery in an effort to avoid incurring additional fees and costs while those 15 efforts are pending. 16 IV. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING REMAINING DISCOVERY 17 A. Discovery Cut-off Date: Discovery will close on Thursday, December 21, 2023. 18 B. Expert Witness Disclosures: Initial expert disclosures shall be made on Monday, 19 October 23, 2023. Rebuttal expert disclosures shall be made on Wednesday, 20 November 22, 2023. C. 21 Dispositive Motions: Dispositive motions shall be filed by Monday, January 22, 2024. 22 D. 23 Pretrial Order: The Pretrial Order shall be filed by Wednesday, February 21, 2024. 24 Pursuant to LR 26-1(b)(5), if dispositive motions are filed, the deadline for filing 25 the joint pretrial order will be suspended until 30 days after the Court’s decision 26 on the dispositive motions or further court order. 27 28 3 See footnote one above. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 KEMP JONES, LLP 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway Seventeenth Floor Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 (702) 385-6000 • Fax (702) 385-6001 kjc@kempjones.com 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Dated: July 12, 2023. Dated: July 12, 2023. /s/ Mona Kaveh J. Randall Jones, Esq. (#1927) Michael J. Gayan, Esq. (#11135) Mona Kaveh, Esq. (#11825) KEMP JONES, LLP 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, 17th Floor Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 /s/ George Haines George Haines, Esq. (#9411) Gerardo Avalos, Esq. (#15171) FREEDOM LAW FIRM 8985 South Eastern Ave., Suite 350 Las Vegas, Nevada 89123 Attorneys for Defendant Nevada Restaurant Services, Inc. David K. Lietz* MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 440 Washington, D.C. 20015-2052 David Hilton Wise, Esq. Joseph M. Langone, Esq.* WISE LAW FIRM, PLC 421 Court Street Reno, Nevada 89501 M. Anderson Berry, Esq.* Gregory Haroutunian, Esq.* CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP. 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Gary M. Klinger* MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Michael Kind, Esq. (#13903) KIND LAW 8860 South Maryland Parkway, Suite 106 Las Vegas, Nevada 89123 Jean Martin, Esq.* MORGAN & MORGAN 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, Florida 33602 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class *pro hac vice 25 IT IS SO ORDERED 26 27 ____________________________________ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 July 13, 2023 DATED: _____________________________ 5
]]>
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.
