Amy M. Samberg (NV Bar No. 10212) amy.samberg@clydeco.us Dylan P. Todd (NV Bar No. 10456) dylan.todd@clydeco.us 7251 W. Lake Mead Blvd., Suite 430 Las Vegas NV 89128 Telephone: 725-248-2900 Attorneys for Defendant Zurich American Insurance Company UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA ANNA B. CARDENAS, as representative of the CASE NO.: 2:25-cv-00993-RFB-DJA Estate of MICHELLE CARDENAS, [PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY Plaintiff, PLAN AND SCHEDULING v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a foreign corporation; SPECIAL SCHEDULING COMPANY, a foreign corporation, SUBMITTED IN COMPLIANCE Defendants. WITH LR 26-1(b) Plaintiff ANNA B. CARDENAS, as representative of the Estate of MICHELLE CARDENAS (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC. (erroneously sued and served as AMAZON.COM, INC.) (“Amazon”) and ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY (“Zurich”) ( collectively “Defendants”), by and through their attorneys, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) and Local Rule 26-1, hereby agree to the following [Proposed] Joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order for the Court’s approval as follows: I. INTRODUCTION/PRELIMINARY MATTER This is an action for breach of contract that also includes bad faith causes of action against Zurich for its denial of Plaintiff’s underinsured motorist (“UIM”) claim. Plaintiff was an Amazon delivery driver who was involved in an auto accident with non-party driver Ryan Swift, for which Plaintiff is alleged to have sustained injuries. Zurich contends that coverage is not afforded to Plaintiff for her UIM claim based on the terms and conditions of the Zurich insurance policy. Plaintiff filed suit against Zurich, and her employer Amazon, in relation to the Zurich’s coverage position. The specifics of the coverage position at issue is whether Plaintiff is entitled to coverage under the Zurich insurance policy even though she was not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident. Plaintiff asserts that if there is no coverage through Zurich, then Plaintiff’s recourse would be against Amazon for failing to provide UIM coverage for a motor vehicle collision, contrary to Amazon’s website advertisement for delivery drivers. Though this lawsuit involves extracontractual claims, the parties believe that this case would benefit by first addressing Zurich’s coverage position. Zurich plans on filing a Motion for Summary Judgment early on in the discovery process. Under Nevada law, the interpretation of an insurance contract is a question of law for the Court to determine based on the words of the insurance policy itself. Starr Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 535 P.3d 254, 267 (2023). As such, the parties understand that the Court will need only to examine Plaintiff’s driving status at the time of the accident with the express terms and condition of the insurance policy in order to issue a ruling on Zurich’s coverage position. The proposed discovery schedule below contemplates an initial 180-day discovery timeline in accordance with LR 26. However, the parties wish to advise the Court that upon the filing of Zurich’s motion for summary judgment, the parties will file a stipulation and order for a formal stay of discovery pending the outcome of Zurich’s motion. This will allow the parties to avoid unnecessary litigation and costs and expenses in discovery and potential motion practice on issues that would be moot depending on the Court’s summary judgment ruling. Zurich anticipates filing its motion for summary judgment on the coverage issue within 45-60 days of the filing of this report. Prior to that time, the parties will make their initial disclosures in accordance with Rule 26, to include among other things, a complete copy of the insurance policy and the facts surrounding Plaintiff’s status as a passenger in the vehicle at the time of the accident. The parties do not intend to conduct depositions or other discovery related to other non-coverage matters during that time as they are not relevant to the coverage position that will be before the Court. / / / A. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) Conferences On July 9, 2025, the parties held the conference to discuss issues required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and LR 26-1. Dylan P. Todd, Esq. of Clyde & Co US LLP appeared for Zurich; Priscilla L.O’Briant, Esq. of Tyson & Mendes, LLP appeared for Amazon; and Brian M. Boyer, Esq. of the Injury Firm/Las Vegas appeared for Plaintiff. B. Discovery Plan: The parties propose to the Court the following discovery plan: 1. Initial Disclosures: The Parties will make their initial FRCP 26 disclosures by Thursday, August 21, 2025. The parties determined that additional time was needed to prepare initial disclosures as they have been in discussions on narrowing the claims and scope of this litigation in order to work towards a case resolution. 2. Discovery Cut-Off Date: The discovery cut-off will be January 5, 2026. This date is one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of the Rule 26 Conference. 3. Amending the Pleadings and Adding Parties: All motions to amend the pleadings or to add parties shall be filed not later than October 7, 2025, which is ninety (90) days prior to the discovery cut-off date. 4. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) Disclosures (Experts): The parties shall disclose expert witness(es) sixty (60) days prior to the discovery cut-off date, November 6, 2025. The parties further agree that disclosure of their respective rebuttal experts will be no later than December 5, 2025, which is thirty (30) days after the initial disclosure of their experts. 5. Dispositive Motions: Dispositive motions shall be filed no later than thirty (30)days after the discovery cut-off date, or February 4, 2026. 6. Pre-Trial Order: The joint pretrial order shall be filed no later than thirty (30) days after the dispositive motion deadline, March 4, 2026. In the event dispositive motions are filed, the date for filing the joint pretrial order shall be suspended until thirty (30) days after decision of the dispositive motion or further order of the Court. / / / / / / 7. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) Pretrial Disclosures: These disclosures and any objections to them shall be made in the joint pretrial order. Unless the court orders otherwise, these disclosures must be made at least thirty (30) days before trial. 8. Alternative Dispute Resolution: The parties certify that they met and conferred about the possibility of using alternative dispute resolution processes and agree that mediation, arbitration and/or neutral evaluation at this stage would be premature. The parties are currently working to narrow the claims and will revisit the matter after the first round of discovery concludes. 9. Alternative Form of Case Disposition: The parties certify that they considered consent to trial by a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. §636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73 and use of the Short Trial Program (General Order 2013-01). The parties will proceed with the standard trial program as governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the Court. a 14 10. Electronic Evidence: The parties have not
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Amy M. Samberg (NV Bar No. 10212) amy.samberg@clydeco.us Dylan P. Todd (NV Bar No. 10456) dylan.todd@clydeco.us 7251 W. Lake Mead Blvd., Suite 430 Las Vegas NV 89128 Telephone: 725-248-2900 Attorneys for Defendant Zurich American Insurance Company UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA ANNA B. CARDENAS, as representative of the CASE NO.: 2:25-cv-00993-RFB-DJA Estate of MICHELLE CARDENAS, [PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY Plaintiff, PLAN AND SCHEDULING v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a foreign corporation; SPECIAL SCHEDULING COMPANY, a foreign corporation, SUBMITTED IN COMPLIANCE Defendants. WITH LR 26-1(b) Plaintiff ANNA B. CARDENAS, as representative of the Estate of MICHELLE CARDENAS (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC. (erroneously sued and served as AMAZON.COM, INC.) (“Amazon”) and ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY (“Zurich”) ( collectively “Defendants”), by and through their attorneys, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) and Local Rule 26-1, hereby agree to the following [Proposed] Joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order for the Court’s approval as follows: I. INTRODUCTION/PRELIMINARY MATTER This is an action for breach of contract that also includes bad faith causes of action against Zurich for its denial of Plaintiff’s underinsured motorist (“UIM”) claim. Plaintiff was an Amazon delivery driver who was involved in an auto accident with non-party driver Ryan Swift, for which Plaintiff is alleged to have sustained injuries. Zurich contends that coverage is not afforded to Plaintiff for her UIM claim based on the terms and conditions of the Zurich insurance policy. Plaintiff filed suit against Zurich, and her employer Amazon, in relation to the Zurich’s coverage position. The specifics of the coverage position at issue is whether Plaintiff is entitled to coverage under the Zurich insurance policy even though she was not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident. Plaintiff asserts that if there is no coverage through Zurich, then Plaintiff’s recourse would be against Amazon for failing to provide UIM coverage for a motor vehicle collision, contrary to Amazon’s website advertisement for delivery drivers. Though this lawsuit involves extracontractual claims, the parties believe that this case would benefit by first addressing Zurich’s coverage position. Zurich plans on filing a Motion for Summary Judgment early on in the discovery process. Under Nevada law, the interpretation of an insurance contract is a question of law for the Court to determine based on the words of the insurance policy itself. Starr Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 535 P.3d 254, 267 (2023). As such, the parties understand that the Court will need only to examine Plaintiff’s driving status at the time of the accident with the express terms and condition of the insurance policy in order to issue a ruling on Zurich’s coverage position. The proposed discovery schedule below contemplates an initial 180-day discovery timeline in accordance with LR 26. However, the parties wish to advise the Court that upon the filing of Zurich’s motion for summary judgment, the parties will file a stipulation and order for a formal stay of discovery pending the outcome of Zurich’s motion. This will allow the parties to avoid unnecessary litigation and costs and expenses in discovery and potential motion practice on issues that would be moot depending on the Court’s summary judgment ruling. Zurich anticipates filing its motion for summary judgment on the coverage issue within 45-60 days of the filing of this report. Prior to that time, the parties will make their initial disclosures in accordance with Rule 26, to include among other things, a complete copy of the insurance policy and the facts surrounding Plaintiff’s status as a passenger in the vehicle at the time of the accident. The parties do not intend to conduct depositions or other discovery related to other non-coverage matters during that time as they are not relevant to the coverage position that will be before the Court. / / / A. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) Conferences On July 9, 2025, the parties held the conference to discuss issues required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and LR 26-1. Dylan P. Todd, Esq. of Clyde & Co US LLP appeared for Zurich; Priscilla L.O’Briant, Esq. of Tyson & Mendes, LLP appeared for Amazon; and Brian M. Boyer, Esq. of the Injury Firm/Las Vegas appeared for Plaintiff. B. Discovery Plan: The parties propose to the Court the following discovery plan: 1. Initial Disclosures: The Parties will make their initial FRCP 26 disclosures by Thursday, August 21, 2025. The parties determined that additional time was needed to prepare initial disclosures as they have been in discussions on narrowing the claims and scope of this litigation in order to work towards a case resolution. 2. Discovery Cut-Off Date: The discovery cut-off will be January 5, 2026. This date is one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of the Rule 26 Conference. 3. Amending the Pleadings and Adding Parties: All motions to amend the pleadings or to add parties shall be filed not later than October 7, 2025, which is ninety (90) days prior to the discovery cut-off date. 4. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) Disclosures (Experts): The parties shall disclose expert witness(es) sixty (60) days prior to the discovery cut-off date, November 6, 2025. The parties further agree that disclosure of their respective rebuttal experts will be no later than December 5, 2025, which is thirty (30) days after the initial disclosure of their experts. 5. Dispositive Motions: Dispositive motions shall be filed no later than thirty (30)days after the discovery cut-off date, or February 4, 2026. 6. Pre-Trial Order: The joint pretrial order shall be filed no later than thirty (30) days after the dispositive motion deadline, March 4, 2026. In the event dispositive motions are filed, the date for filing the joint pretrial order shall be suspended until thirty (30) days after decision of the dispositive motion or further order of the Court. / / / / / / 7. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) Pretrial Disclosures: These disclosures and any objections to them shall be made in the joint pretrial order. Unless the court orders otherwise, these disclosures must be made at least thirty (30) days before trial. 8. Alternative Dispute Resolution: The parties certify that they met and conferred about the possibility of using alternative dispute resolution processes and agree that mediation, arbitration and/or neutral evaluation at this stage would be premature. The parties are currently working to narrow the claims and will revisit the matter after the first round of discovery concludes. 9. Alternative Form of Case Disposition: The parties certify that they considered consent to trial by a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. §636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73 and use of the Short Trial Program (General Order 2013-01). The parties will proceed with the standard trial program as governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the Court. a 14 10. Electronic Evidence: The parties have not identified any issues regarding the disclosure, discovery, or use of electronically stored information (“ESI”) at a jury trial. The parties have agreed that electronic discovery should be produced in electronic format searchable by all parties. C. Stipulations Regarding Limitations or Conditions or Additional Discovery: 1. Changes or Limitations: The parties will proceed to engage in discovery as permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Court Rules, including deposition, interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and requests for admission, with no anticipated changes or limitations identified at this time. 2. Other Order Under 26(c) or 16(b) or (c): None at this time. D. Extensions or Modifications of the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order: Local Rule foe governs modifications or extension of this Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. Any stipulation or motion to extend a deadline set forth herein must be made not later than twenty-one (21) days before the expiration of the subject deadline. ///
E. Claw Back Agreement: In the event any party (the “Discloser”) produces material or documents without intending to waive a claim of privilege or confidentiality, the Discloser does not waive any claim of privilege or confidentiality if, within a reasonable amount of time after the Discloser actually discovers that such material or documents were produced, the Discloser notifies all other parties (the “Recipients”) of the inadvertent disclosure of privileged or confidential items, identifying the material or documents produced and stating the privilege or confidentiality provision asserted. Mere failure to diligently screen documents before producing them does not waive a claim of privilege or confidentiality. If the Discloser asserts that it inadvertently produced a privileged or confidential item in accordance with this Claw Back Agreement, the Recipient(s) must return the specified material or documents and any copies within ten (10) days of the notification. The Recipient(s) must further permanently destroy any electronic copies of such specified material or documents and affirm in writing to counsel for the Discloser of such destruction. In the event that the Recipient(s) contends the documents are not subject to privilege or confidentiality as asserted by the Discloser in accordance with the Claw Back Agreement, the Recipient(s) may, following the return and destruction described in Paragraph 2 of this Claw Back Agreement, challenge the privilege claim through a Motion to Compel or other pleading with the Court in which the litigation is currently pending. The parties agree that any review of items by the judge shall be an in camera review. Should the Recipient(s) not challenge the Discloser’s claim of privilege or confidentiality, or should the presiding judge determine that the documents are in fact subject to privilege or confidentiality, the documents, or information contained therein or derived therefrom, may not be used in the Litigation or against Discloser in any future litigation or arbitration brought by the Recipient(s). Nothing contained within this Claw Back Agreement shall be deemed to waive any objection that any Party may wish to assert under applicable state or federal law. / / / / / / Dated this 14" day of August, 2025. Dated this 13" day of August, 2025. CLYDE & CO US LLP TYSON & MENDES LLP /s/ Dylan P. Todd /s/ Priscilla L. O’Briant Amy M. Samberg (NV Bar No. 10212) Priscilla L. O’Briant (NV Bar No. 10171) Dylan P. Todd (NV Bar No. 10456) 2835 St. Rose Pkwy., Suite 140 7251 W. Lake Mead Blvd., Suite 430 Henderson, NV 89052 Las Vegas NV 89128 Telephone: 702-724-2648 g Telephone: 725-248-2900 Facsimile: 702-410-7684 Facsimile: 725-248-2907 Attorneys for Defendant Attorneys for Defendant Amazon Logistics, Inc., erroneously sued and Zurich American Insurance Company served as Amazon.com, Inc. Dated this 13" day of August, 2025.
THE INJURY FIRM | LAS VEGAS /s/ Brian M. Boyer a 14 Brian M. Boyer (NV Bar No. 12185) 7391 W. Charleston Blvd., Suite 120 Las Vegas, Nevada 89117 Telephone: (702) 514-1414 Facsimile: (702) 995-0503 Attorneys for Plaintiff 17 IT IS SO ORDERED: VOD ><\ { □□□ DANIEL J. ALBREGTS} UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DATED: 8/15/2025
Todd, Raphaela From: Priscilla O'Briant Wednesday, August 13, 2025 4:39 PM Brian Boyer; Todd, Dylan Cc: Todd, Raphaela; Jennifer March RE: \RE: * DRAFT PROPOSED JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER... * re Cardenas v. Swift, et al ... Clyde File #10717636
to submit with my electronic signature. Thank you. Priscilla L. O’Briant Co-Branch Managing Partner - Las Vegas 2835 St. Rose Pkwy., Suite 140 Henderson, NV 89052 Phone: 702.724.2648 Direct: 725.605.4347 Fax: 702.410.7684 pobriant@tysonmendes.com www.tysonmendes.com f The Apexis Here! | Mansfield Rule Click to Learn More Certified 2023-2024 *irersinus This email and any attachments are from the law firm of Tyson & Mendes, LLP. This email is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is proprietary, confidential, privileged, or protected by state or federal law. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this email and attachments are If you received this email in error, please notify us by reply email immediately so we may arrange for the retrieval of the information. From: Priscilla O'Briant Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2025 4:38 PM Brian Boyer ; Dylan Todd Cc: Raphaela Todd ; Jennifer March Subject: RE: \RE: * DRAFT PROPOSED JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER ... * re Cardenas v. Swift, et al ... Clyde File #10717636 Minor revisions to reflect appropriate Amazon entity and my name. Thanks
Priscilla L. O’Briant Co-Branch Managing Partner —- Las Vegas 2835 St. Rose Pkwy., Suite 140 Henderson, NV 89052 Phone: 702.724.2648 Direct: 725.605.4347 Fax: 702.410.7684
Todd, Raphaela From: Brian Boyer Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2025 4:41 PM Priscilla O'Briant; Todd, Dylan Ce: Todd, Raphaela; Jennifer March Subject: RE: \RE: * DRAFT PROPOSED JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER ...* re Cardenas v. Swift, et al ... Clyde File #10717636
may affix my e-signature to this version. Sincerely, Brian M. Boyer, Esq.
— THE —— NTTIRV GIRYV FIRM — LAS VEGAS—— Injury Firm | Las Vegas 7391 W. Charleston Blvd. Suite 120 Las Vegas, NV 89117 Phone: (702) 514-1414 Fax: (702) 995-0503 contents of this e-mail message and its attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) thereof. In addition, this e-mail transmission is confidential and may be subject to privilege protecting communications between attorneys and their clients. If you are not the named addressee(s), or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are directed not to read, disclose, reproduce, distribute, disseminate, or otherwise use this transmission.
From: Priscilla O'Briant Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2025 4:39 PM Brian Boyer ; Dylan Todd Cc: Raphaela Todd ; Jennifer March Subject: RE: \RE: * DRAFT PROPOSED JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER ... * re Cardenas v. Swift, et al... Clyde File #10717636
to submit with my electronic signature. Thank you. Priscilla L. O’Briant Co-Branch Managing Partner — Las Vegas 2835 St. Rose Pkwy., Suite 140 Henderson, NV 89052