1 Nathan R. Ring, Nevada Bar No. 12078 9 ||Paul D. Cotsonis, Nevada Bar No. 8786 Bradley Combs, Nevada Bar No. 16391 3 || REESE RING VELTO, PLLC 3100 W. Charleston Blvd., Ste. 208 4 ||Las Vegas, Nevada 89102 Telephone: (725) 235-9750 5 nathan@rrvlawyers.com 6 ||paul@rrvlawyers.com brad@rrvlawyers.com 7 Attorneys for Defendant, Teachers Health Trust 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 DIANA GOODSELL, SHERI Case No.: 2:23-CV-01510-APG-DJA 11 |} DEBARTOLO, MICHELLE REILLY ANNETTE ANAS, and PAULA KEVISH, 12 individually and on behalf of all others JOINT STIPULATION AND 13 || similarly situated, [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING REMAINING DEADLINES 14 Plaintiffs, [SECOND REQUEST] 15 |] y. 16 17 || TEACHERS HEALTH TRUST, MEDSOURCE MANAGEMENT GROUP, 18 || LLC dba WELLHEALTH QUALITY CARE, HEALTHCARE PARTNERS NEVADA, 19 |) LLC, VALUE BASED HEALTHCARE 20 INSTITUTE, LLC fka VBH PARTNERS fka VALUE BASED HEALTHCARE 21 || PARTNERS fka VBH, INC., et al. 22 Defendants. 23 24 = 25 26 Defendant, TEACHERS HEALTH TRUST (“Defendant” or “THT”), by and through its a 27 ||attorneys of record REESE RING VELTO, PLLC, and Plaintiffs, DIANA GOODSELL, SHERI 28
1 |}/DEBARTOLO, MICHELLE REILLY, ANNETTE ANAS, and PAULA KEVISH, individually an 2 |jon behalf of all others similarly situated, hereby jointly stipulate and request this Court extend fc 3 ||twenty-one (21) days the deadlines set for dispositive motion, and class certification amendment dat 4 ||set in the scheduling order in this matter. The parties are no requesting an extension of any discover 5 dates, including the discovery deadline date, which has already passed. 6 I. DISCOVERY ALREADY COMPLETED 7 Plaintiffs have taken the deposition of multiple individuals employed by and formerl 8 ||employed by the Teachers Health Trust (“THT”). This includes the current THT CEO, Tom Zumtobe 9 prior THT CEO, Michael Skolnik,', and prior THT Chairman of the Board, Michael Steinbrink 10 Plaintiffs have also taken the deposition of Steven Keltie of WellHealth and Executive Director of th 11 |/Clark County Education Association John Vellardita. 12 In addition to depositions, the Plaintiffs have served multiple sets of requests for productio 13 ||and interrogatories upon THT. Responses to those discovery requests have led to the production c 14 |!substantial amounts of documents and electronic and native format data. The data includes years c 15 ||claims data related to the approximately 80,000 affected putative class members. Plaintiffs have als 16 ||disclosed an economic expert and produced an expert report on damages in the case. 17 THT has taken the deposition of all five of the named plaintiffs. THT has also submitted tw 18 ||sets of requests for production to Plaintiffs, Goodsell, Debartolo, Reilly, and Anas. THT has submitte 19 |/one set of requests for production to Plaintiff Kevish. THT has also served interrogatories on all fiv 20 |lof the named plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs have responded to the requests for production with voluminou 21 ||records. THT has disclosed a rebuttal expert and provided a rebuttal expert report. 22 Though not strictly within the Court’s required information under LR 26-3 for seekin 23 |/extension of scheduling order deadlines, the parties also engaged in a mediation before Retire 24 ||Magistrate Judge Peggy Leen on December 10, 2024. The parties dedicated significant time, briefing 25 |\and preparation to the matter but were unable to reach a resolution.
' This deposition required counsel to travel to San Francisco, California for this deposition because that is where □□□□□□□□□ eentar oslo pete cooeanseaes of bee Stakaer oc dakar itaacoe oath □□□ 28 Plaintiffs’ counsel, THT’s counsel, and Mr. Skolnik’s personal counsel. ’
1 Significant additional claims and general ledger data was provided by THT to the Plaintiff 2 || following the Court’s extension of discovery deadlines upon the first request. Following production o 3 ||this data, Plaintiffs’ expert produced a supplemental expert report. THT’s expert then prepared anc 4 || THT produced a supplemental rebuttal expert report. 5 THT produced significant additional supplemental documentation to Plaintiffs on April 17 6 ||2025, the date of the close of discovery in this matter. The production was voluminous and related □□ 7 ||two litigation matters the facts of which the Plaintiffs deemed relevant or related to this litigation 8 || THT’s supplemental responses are still being reviewed by the Plaintiffs. 9 The motions expected to be filed by Plaintiffs and by THT will heavily rely upon complicatec 10 ||claims and economic data. The motions will require significant attention to detail and organization o: 11 ||multiple exhibits. It is expected that the motions will potentially include requests for various sub. 12 ||classes in this matter. For these reasons, the Parties are requesting additional time to complete □□□□ 13 ||motions. In addition, the parties are proposing a briefing schedule in this document and request tha 14 |/the Court grant the proposed briefing schedule. 15 The parties present good cause for seeking the extension of the dispositive motion and amendec 16 ||class certification deadline. See LR 26-3. The deadline for amendment of class definition anc 17 ||dispositive motions is set for May 15, 2025, which is twenty-one (21) days from today. 18 In Cochran v. Wal-Mart, Inc., Jadge Koppe addressed the good cause standard for modifying 19 ||scheduling order deadlines. Case No. 2:23-cv-00868-JAD-NJK (D. Nev., Oct. 5, 2023). Judge Koppe 20 ||described good cause as follows: 21 The good cause analysis turns on whether the subject deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the exercise of diligence. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 22 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992). In making this determination, courts consider whether relief from the scheduling order is sought based on the development of matters that could not 23 have been reasonably anticipated at the time the schedule was established. E.g., Jackson 24 v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999). Courts may also consider other pertinent circumstances, including whether the movant was diligent in seeking R25 modification of the scheduling order once it became apparent that the movant required Poe relief from the deadline at issue. E.g., Sharp v. Covenant Care LLC, 288 F.R.D. 465, 26 467 (S.D. Cal. 2012). "The diligence obligation is ongoing" such that parties must "diligently attempt to adhere to [the deadlines in the scheduling order] throughout the 27 subsequent course of the litigation." Morgal v. Maricopa Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 284 = F.R.D. 452, 460 (D. Ariz. 2012).
1 Good cause exists for modification of the two scheduling deadlines here because (1) the partie 2 |\have diligently engaged in discovery here, (2) the parties have been diligent in completing discover 3 ||throughout, (3) counsel realize that additional time is needed to prepare their briefing in thi 4 ||complicated class action matter, and (4) they are diligent in requesting this extension before th 5 deadline. 6 As stated in Section I, the parties have already engaged in significant discovery in this actio 7 |\as discussed above and the parties are not seeking an extension of any discovery deadlines. They ar 8 ||only seeking the extension of the remaining motion and pretrial order deadlines. 9 As it concerns the need to extend the dispositive motion and class certification deadline 10 ||specifically, the supplemental expert report and rebuttal expert reports are lengthy and rely upo 11 |/voluminous datasets. The datasets include complicated details concerning health claims and th 12 ||matters in this class action case involve various aspects of health plan claims and health plan design.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 Nathan R. Ring, Nevada Bar No. 12078 9 ||Paul D. Cotsonis, Nevada Bar No. 8786 Bradley Combs, Nevada Bar No. 16391 3 || REESE RING VELTO, PLLC 3100 W. Charleston Blvd., Ste. 208 4 ||Las Vegas, Nevada 89102 Telephone: (725) 235-9750 5 nathan@rrvlawyers.com 6 ||paul@rrvlawyers.com brad@rrvlawyers.com 7 Attorneys for Defendant, Teachers Health Trust 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 DIANA GOODSELL, SHERI Case No.: 2:23-CV-01510-APG-DJA 11 |} DEBARTOLO, MICHELLE REILLY ANNETTE ANAS, and PAULA KEVISH, 12 individually and on behalf of all others JOINT STIPULATION AND 13 || similarly situated, [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING REMAINING DEADLINES 14 Plaintiffs, [SECOND REQUEST] 15 |] y. 16 17 || TEACHERS HEALTH TRUST, MEDSOURCE MANAGEMENT GROUP, 18 || LLC dba WELLHEALTH QUALITY CARE, HEALTHCARE PARTNERS NEVADA, 19 |) LLC, VALUE BASED HEALTHCARE 20 INSTITUTE, LLC fka VBH PARTNERS fka VALUE BASED HEALTHCARE 21 || PARTNERS fka VBH, INC., et al. 22 Defendants. 23 24 = 25 26 Defendant, TEACHERS HEALTH TRUST (“Defendant” or “THT”), by and through its a 27 ||attorneys of record REESE RING VELTO, PLLC, and Plaintiffs, DIANA GOODSELL, SHERI 28
1 |}/DEBARTOLO, MICHELLE REILLY, ANNETTE ANAS, and PAULA KEVISH, individually an 2 |jon behalf of all others similarly situated, hereby jointly stipulate and request this Court extend fc 3 ||twenty-one (21) days the deadlines set for dispositive motion, and class certification amendment dat 4 ||set in the scheduling order in this matter. The parties are no requesting an extension of any discover 5 dates, including the discovery deadline date, which has already passed. 6 I. DISCOVERY ALREADY COMPLETED 7 Plaintiffs have taken the deposition of multiple individuals employed by and formerl 8 ||employed by the Teachers Health Trust (“THT”). This includes the current THT CEO, Tom Zumtobe 9 prior THT CEO, Michael Skolnik,', and prior THT Chairman of the Board, Michael Steinbrink 10 Plaintiffs have also taken the deposition of Steven Keltie of WellHealth and Executive Director of th 11 |/Clark County Education Association John Vellardita. 12 In addition to depositions, the Plaintiffs have served multiple sets of requests for productio 13 ||and interrogatories upon THT. Responses to those discovery requests have led to the production c 14 |!substantial amounts of documents and electronic and native format data. The data includes years c 15 ||claims data related to the approximately 80,000 affected putative class members. Plaintiffs have als 16 ||disclosed an economic expert and produced an expert report on damages in the case. 17 THT has taken the deposition of all five of the named plaintiffs. THT has also submitted tw 18 ||sets of requests for production to Plaintiffs, Goodsell, Debartolo, Reilly, and Anas. THT has submitte 19 |/one set of requests for production to Plaintiff Kevish. THT has also served interrogatories on all fiv 20 |lof the named plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs have responded to the requests for production with voluminou 21 ||records. THT has disclosed a rebuttal expert and provided a rebuttal expert report. 22 Though not strictly within the Court’s required information under LR 26-3 for seekin 23 |/extension of scheduling order deadlines, the parties also engaged in a mediation before Retire 24 ||Magistrate Judge Peggy Leen on December 10, 2024. The parties dedicated significant time, briefing 25 |\and preparation to the matter but were unable to reach a resolution.
' This deposition required counsel to travel to San Francisco, California for this deposition because that is where □□□□□□□□□ eentar oslo pete cooeanseaes of bee Stakaer oc dakar itaacoe oath □□□ 28 Plaintiffs’ counsel, THT’s counsel, and Mr. Skolnik’s personal counsel. ’
1 Significant additional claims and general ledger data was provided by THT to the Plaintiff 2 || following the Court’s extension of discovery deadlines upon the first request. Following production o 3 ||this data, Plaintiffs’ expert produced a supplemental expert report. THT’s expert then prepared anc 4 || THT produced a supplemental rebuttal expert report. 5 THT produced significant additional supplemental documentation to Plaintiffs on April 17 6 ||2025, the date of the close of discovery in this matter. The production was voluminous and related □□ 7 ||two litigation matters the facts of which the Plaintiffs deemed relevant or related to this litigation 8 || THT’s supplemental responses are still being reviewed by the Plaintiffs. 9 The motions expected to be filed by Plaintiffs and by THT will heavily rely upon complicatec 10 ||claims and economic data. The motions will require significant attention to detail and organization o: 11 ||multiple exhibits. It is expected that the motions will potentially include requests for various sub. 12 ||classes in this matter. For these reasons, the Parties are requesting additional time to complete □□□□ 13 ||motions. In addition, the parties are proposing a briefing schedule in this document and request tha 14 |/the Court grant the proposed briefing schedule. 15 The parties present good cause for seeking the extension of the dispositive motion and amendec 16 ||class certification deadline. See LR 26-3. The deadline for amendment of class definition anc 17 ||dispositive motions is set for May 15, 2025, which is twenty-one (21) days from today. 18 In Cochran v. Wal-Mart, Inc., Jadge Koppe addressed the good cause standard for modifying 19 ||scheduling order deadlines. Case No. 2:23-cv-00868-JAD-NJK (D. Nev., Oct. 5, 2023). Judge Koppe 20 ||described good cause as follows: 21 The good cause analysis turns on whether the subject deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the exercise of diligence. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 22 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992). In making this determination, courts consider whether relief from the scheduling order is sought based on the development of matters that could not 23 have been reasonably anticipated at the time the schedule was established. E.g., Jackson 24 v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999). Courts may also consider other pertinent circumstances, including whether the movant was diligent in seeking R25 modification of the scheduling order once it became apparent that the movant required Poe relief from the deadline at issue. E.g., Sharp v. Covenant Care LLC, 288 F.R.D. 465, 26 467 (S.D. Cal. 2012). "The diligence obligation is ongoing" such that parties must "diligently attempt to adhere to [the deadlines in the scheduling order] throughout the 27 subsequent course of the litigation." Morgal v. Maricopa Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 284 = F.R.D. 452, 460 (D. Ariz. 2012).
1 Good cause exists for modification of the two scheduling deadlines here because (1) the partie 2 |\have diligently engaged in discovery here, (2) the parties have been diligent in completing discover 3 ||throughout, (3) counsel realize that additional time is needed to prepare their briefing in thi 4 ||complicated class action matter, and (4) they are diligent in requesting this extension before th 5 deadline. 6 As stated in Section I, the parties have already engaged in significant discovery in this actio 7 |\as discussed above and the parties are not seeking an extension of any discovery deadlines. They ar 8 ||only seeking the extension of the remaining motion and pretrial order deadlines. 9 As it concerns the need to extend the dispositive motion and class certification deadline 10 ||specifically, the supplemental expert report and rebuttal expert reports are lengthy and rely upo 11 |/voluminous datasets. The datasets include complicated details concerning health claims and th 12 ||matters in this class action case involve various aspects of health plan claims and health plan design. 13 It is important for counsel to provide the most concise argument to the Court in these motion: 14 || This will aid the parties but will also assist the Court in distilling the significant data and exhibits the 15 || will be filed in this matter. 16 In short, the parties have been diligent throughout, this matter and seek to continue workin 17 ||collaboratively in moving this matter forward and presenting this matter to the Court. With these aim 18 ||in mind, the Parties propose the following revised scheduling order, with a modified briefing schedul 19 ||for oppositions and replies: 20 II. PROPOSED DATES FOR REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER
Definition and Certification 25 Filed
|_—__ = 55 This cieeaas been June 19, 2025, under normal operation of rules. The extension sought is one week from the
Replies in Support of July 10, 20257 Motion Filed 2 3 The parties are requesting only twenty-one (21) additional days on the unexpired deadlines and 4 ||an extended briefing schedule for their motions as set out above. They are making this request in good 5 faith and not to delay these proceedings. They believe this period is sufficient for completing the 6 briefing and motions in this matter. 7 . Dated: April 24, 2025 By: /s/ Nathan Ring 8 Nathan R. Ring Paul Cotsonis 2 Bradley Combs 10 REESE RING VELTO, PLLC 3100 W. Charleston Blvd., Ste. 208 11 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Attorneys for Teachers Health Trust 12 Dated: April 24, 2025 By: /s/ Gene Stonebarger 13 Gene Stonebarger 14 Stonebarger Law APC 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100 15 Folsom, California 95630 16 JACK C. JUAN HAYES WAKAYAMA JUAN 17 5798 S Durango Drive, Ste 105 Las 18 Vegas, Nevada 89113 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 222 27 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 3 This date would have been July 3, 2025 assuming the June 26, 2025 opposition date is granted. This is a request for a = || one-week extension from that date.
1 ORDER 2 Having considered the stipulation of the parties and the representations therein, and with goc 3 || cause appearing, it is hereby ordered that the following deadlines are now set: 4
Definition and Certification
9 The parties’ proposed stipulated briefing schedule is also approved. The Oppositions 10 || Motions will be due on or before June 26, 2025, and the Replies will be due on or before July 10, 202 11 IT IS SO ORDERED: ) 12 DATED: 4/25/2025 \ JOY □□ 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25