Covarrubias et al v. Key Insurance Company, No. 2:2023cv00291 - Document 19 (D. Nev. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER Granting 18 Stipulation for Extension of Time. Discovery due by 12/21/2023. Motions due by 1/22/2024. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 2/19/2024. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts on 7/26/2023. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AMMi)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Covarrubias et al v. Key Insurance Company Doc. 19 Case 2:23-cv-00291-APG-DJA Document 19 Filed 07/26/23 Page 1 of 6 1 JAMES P. C. SILVESTRI, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 3603 2 ALI R. IQBAL, ESQ. 3 Nevada Bar No. 15056 PYATT SILVESTRI 4 701 Bridger Ave., Suite 600 Las Vegas, NV 89101 5 Tel: (702) 383-6000 Fax: (702) 477-0088 6 jsilvestri@pyattsilvestri.com 7 aiqbal@pyattsilvestri.com 8 Attorneys for Defendant, KEY INSURANCE COMPANY 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 12 13 14 15 16 LUCIA COVARRUBIAS, an Individual, MARIA DE JESUS RODRIGUEZ, an Individual, ESTATE OF OSCAR ALFREDO AYALA, Individually and as Assignees of PABLO C. TORRESESPARZA 17 18 CASE NO.: 2:23-cv-00291-APG-DJA Plaintiff, vs. 19 20 21 22 23 KEY INSURANCE COMPANY, and DOES I - V, and ROE CORPORATIONS I - V, inclusive, Defendants. 24 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY (FIRST REQUEST) 25 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between Plaintiffs LUCIA 26 COVARRUBIAS, MARIA DE JESUS RODRIGUEZ, and the ESTATE OF OSCAR 27 ALFREDO AYALA and their counsel of record, David F. Sampson, Esq., of the Law Offices of David Sampson, and Defendant KEY INSURANCE COMPANY, through its counsel of record 28 Pyatt Silvestri 701 Bridger Ave Suite 600 Las Vegas, NV 89101 (702) 383-6000 Page 1 of 6 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:23-cv-00291-APG-DJA Document 19 Filed 07/26/23 Page 2 of 6 1 James P.C. Silvestri, Esq., and Ali R. Iqbal, Esq., of the law firm Pyatt Silvestri, that the 2 discovery deadlines shall be extended 120 days, pursuant to L.R. 26-3. This is the first request 3 made by the parties. The parties set forth the following information in support of their 4 stipulation. 5 6 a) Statement Specifying the Discovery Completed. Plaintiffs made their initial disclosures as required by FRCP 26(a)(1) on April 25, 2023, 7 and made a supplemental disclosure on June 21, 2023. Defendant made its initial disclosures as 8 required by FRCP 26(a)(1) on April 5, 2023, made a supplemental disclosure on May 25, 2023, 9 and made a second supplemental disclosure on June 20, 2023. On April 25, 2023, Plaintiffs 10 served their first sets of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents on Defendant. 11 On May 25, 2023, Defendant responded to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. On June 22, 2023, Defendant served supplemental responses to 12 Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production of Documents and supplemental Answers to Plaintiffs’ 13 Interrogatories. On July 14, 2023, Defendant served their first sets of Interrogatories, Requests 14 for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admissions to Plaintiffs. Defendant has 15 requested the availability of Plaintiffs for depositions. 16 b) Discovery That Remains to Be Completed. 17 The extension is necessary so the parties can conduct the discovery after receiving 18 documents and responses to the discovery requests. The parties further need to conduct the 19 discovery in order to provide complete expert reports, which include depositions of Plaintiffs, 20 and Key Insurance Company representatives, and other witnesses as discovery continues. 21 Additionally, a Motion for Protective Order based on a Meet and Confer held between the parties 22 on July 6, 2023, was filed on July 21, 2023 (Docket #17), regarding documents to be produced 23 by Defendant, which is pending in this Court. 24 c) Reasons Discovery Was Not Completed Within the Time Limits and Needs to Be 25 Extended 26 The parties are making a request to extend the deadline to amend pleadings and add 27 parties, the initial expert deadlines, and the rebuttal expert deadline, all of which have closed. 28 Pursuant to FRCP 6(b)(1)(B) and LR IA 6-1(a) there is excusable neglect to allow the extension Pyatt Silvestri 701 Bridger Ave Suite 600 Las Vegas, NV 89101 (702) 383-6000 Page 2 of 6 Case 2:23-cv-00291-APG-DJA Document 19 Filed 07/26/23 Page 3 of 6 1 of these deadlines. The Court previously denied the party’s request, without prejudice, because 2 no excusable neglect was identified. Below is an analysis of excusable neglect that exists within 3 this matter. 4 There are at least four factors in determining whether neglect is excusable: (1) the danger 5 of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith. 6 Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd., 507 U.S. 380, 395, 113 S. Ct. 1489, 123 L. Ed. 7 2d 74 (1993). The determination of whether neglect is excusable is ultimately an equitable one, 8 taking account of all relevant circumstances surrounding the party's omission. Pioneer, 507 U.S. 9 at 395. This equitable determination is left to the discretion of the district court. Pincay v. 10 Andrews, 389 F.3d 853, 860 (9th Cir.2004). Erection Co. v. Archer W. Contrs., LLC, 2013 U.S. 11 Dist. LEXIS 159029, *7. 12 First, there is no danger to either party in the extension of these deadlines because both 13 undersigned counsels have stipulated to allow all deadlines to be extended by 120 days. Second, 14 the length of the delay is minimal as the deadlines sought to be extended recently expired. The 15 parties are jointly seeking an extension of 120 days in order to conduct additional discovery 16 which is required by both parties. This includes the review of discovery responses, depositions 17 by both sides as to pertinent witnesses including experts, as well as additional documents to be 18 produced by Defendant in response to Plaintiffs’ discovery. These documents would be relevant 19 to any retained expert by the respective parties. Therefore, this gives the parties additional time 20 to resolve these issues, pursuant to Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order (Docket #17) filed 21 on July 21, 2023. The parties have also held multiple Meet and Confers as to discovery responses 22 and have been working together amicably to resolve these issues without court intervention. 23 Third, the reason for the delay is due to the pending disclosure of documents regarding 24 Defendant’s policies and procedures in handling bodily injury claims. The parties respectfully disagree as to how these documents should be produced in light of the request for confidentiality 25 by Defendant. Plaintiff served Requests for Production of Documents and Interrogatories to 26 Defendant on April 25, 2023. Defendant then responded to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories and 27 Requests for Production of Documents on May 25, 2023. On that same day Plaintiffs requested a 28 Pyatt Silvestri 701 Bridger Ave Suite 600 Las Vegas, NV 89101 (702) 383-6000 Page 3 of 6 Case 2:23-cv-00291-APG-DJA Document 19 Filed 07/26/23 Page 4 of 6 1 Meet and Confer with respect to both sets of responses. The parties held a Meet and Confer on 2 June 6, 2023, in which the parties discussed these issues. Following that Meet and Confer, on 3 June 22, 2023, Defendant provided a draft stipulation for protective order and confidentiality for 4 Plaintiffs. Defendant then provided supplemental responses to discovery on June 25, 2023. On 5 June 29, 2023, Plaintiffs stated they could not agree to a protective order and confidentiality. The parties then held another Meet and Confer on July 6, 2023, but ultimately could not agree after a 6 meaningful discussion on the matter. Defendant did not have authority disclose these documents 7 unless and until a Protective Order was in place. A Motion regarding those issues was filed on 8 July 21, 2023. 9 Defendant’s policies and procedures are necessary in this matter for further discovery for 10 both parties, as this case centers on allegations by Plaintiffs of Bad Faith against Defendant. 11 Since there has been no agreement as to how these policies and procedures should be produced, 12 Defendant could not move forward with retaining an expert. This issue could be resolved with a 13 Protective Order, which would require that any respective expert keep these documents 14 confidential in their review, without that determination in this case experts could not be retained 15 which in turn caused the delay of disclosing any such expert, from Defendant’s perspective. In 16 turn, from Plaintiff’s perspective there are experts that would not be willing to be retained if a 17 Protective Order was in place. Therefore, neither party was able to disclose an expert. 18 Finally, given the parties have gone back and forth on certain discovery responses and 19 certain documents to be produced, the parties have acted in good faith, they have not attempted 20 to delay discovery in this matter and are moving forward with depositions in order to further 21 discovery. Therefore, because of the factors identified above, excusable neglect is present in 22 order to extend the deadlines as proposed below, including ones that have closed, e.g., deadline 23 to Amend pleadings and add parties, the initial and rebuttal expert deadlines. d) Proposed Schedule for Completing All Remaining Discovery 24 25 26 27 In order to allow time for the parties to resolve and complete additional necessary discovery before they exchange expert reports, the parties which to extend existing deadlines by 120 days as follows: 28 Pyatt Silvestri 701 Bridger Ave Suite 600 Las Vegas, NV 89101 (702) 383-6000 Page 4 of 6 Case 2:23-cv-00291-APG-DJA Document 19 Filed 07/26/23 Page 5 of 6 1 Current Date 2 Proposed Date Amend Pleadings and Add Parties May 23, 2023 (closed) September 22, 2023 3 Initial Expert Disclosures June 24, 2023 (closed) October 23, 20231 4 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures July 24, 2023 (closed) November 21, 2023 5 Close of Discovery August 23, 2023 December 21, 2023 6 Dispositive Motions September 22, 2023 January 22, 20242 7 Joint Pretrial Order October 22, 2023 February 19, 2024 8 9 Based on the foregoing, the parties respectfully request this Court grant their Stipulation 10 an Order to Extend Discovery Deadlines (First Request). 11 Respectfully Submitted this 25th day of July 2023. 12 PYATT SILVESTRI LAW OFFICES OF DAVID SAMPSON /s/ Ali R. Iqbal, Esq. JAMES P. C. SILVESTRI, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 3603 ALI R. IQBAL, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 15056 701 Bridger Ave., Suite 600 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Attorneys for Defendant /s/David Sampson, Esq. DAVID F. SAMPSON, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 6811 630 South 3rd Street Las Vegas, NV 89101 Attorney for Plaintiffs 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 DATED: July 26, 2023 21 22 ________________________________ DANIEL J. ALBREGTS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 1 28 Pyatt Silvestri 701 Bridger Ave Suite 600 Las Vegas, NV 89101 (702) 383-6000 2 The actual date falls on a Sunday, October 22, 2023. The actual date falls on a Saturday, January 20, 2024. Page 5 of 6 Case 2:23-cv-00291-APG-DJA Document 19 Filed 07/26/23 Page 6 of 6 ORDER 1 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Pyatt Silvestri 701 Bridger Ave Suite 600 Las Vegas, NV 89101 (702) 383-6000 Page 6 of 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.
