Goodsell v. Teachers Health Trust

Opinion

! || 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-ev-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, ORDER EXTENDING REMAINING DEADLINES 14 Plaintiffs, [FOURTH 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 0 INSTITUTE, LLC fka VBH PARTNERS fka VALUE BASED HEALTHCARE 21 || PARTNERS fka VBH, INC., et al. 22 Defendants. 23 24 = 25 Defendant, TEACHERS HEALTH TRUST (“Defendant” or “THT”), by and through its 27 |\attorneys of record REESE RING VELTO, PLLC, and Plaintiffs, DIANA GOODSELL, SHERI 28

1 DEBARTOLO, MICHELLE REILLY ANNETTE ANAS, and PAULA KEVISH, individually and 9 |{on behalf of all others similarly situated, hereby jointly stipulate and request this Court extend for 3 five (5) calendar days the deadlines set for replies in support of the motions filed in this matter on 4 || June 20, 2025. Those motions are THT’s Motion for Summary Judgment, THT’s Motion to 5 Decertify Class, THT’s Motion Seeking Exclude Expert Testimony, Plaintiffs’ Motion Seeking an 6 Unfavorable Inference for Spoilation, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Certified Class Definition, and Plaintiffs Motion Requesting Judicial Notice. ECF Nos. 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110. These

9 replies are currently due on July 24, 2025. The parties are not requesting an extension of any 10 ||discovery dates, including the discovery deadline date, which has already passed. 1] I. DISCOVERY ALREADY COMPLETED 12 Discovery 1s closed, and the parties do not seek to engage in further discovery and are not 13 requesting the Court to reopen discovery. 14 15 Il. NEED FOR FIVE DAY EXTENSION 16 “A request made within 21 days of the subject deadline must be supported by a showing of 17 || good cause.” LR 26-3. The parties present good cause for seeking the extension of the dispositive 18 || motion and amended class certification briefing schedule set by this Court on April 28, 2025. See LI 19 26-3; ECF No. 101. This request is made within 21 days of the expiration of the June 5, 2025, deadline for submission of dispositive motions and class certification amendment motions. Thus, good cause must be shown.

23 In Cochran v. Wal-Mart, Inc., Judge Koppe addressed the good cause standard for modifying 24 ||scheduling order deadlines. Case No. 2:23-cv-00868-JAD-NJK (D. Nev., Oct. 5, 2023). Judge

25 ||Koppe described good cause as follows: 26 The good cause analysis turns on whether the subject deadlines cannot reasonably be 7 met despite the exercise of diligence. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 2 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992). In making this determination, courts consider whether relief > 38 from the scheduling order is sought based on the development of matters that could not

1 have been reasonably anticipated at the time the schedule was established. E.g., Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999). Courts may also 9 consider other pertinent circumstances, including whether the movant was diligent in seeking modification of the scheduling order once it became apparent that the movant 3 required relief from the deadline at issue. E.g., Sharp v. Covenant Care LLC, 288 F.R.D. 465, 467 (S.D. Cal. 2012). "The diligence obligation is ongoing" such that 4 parties must "diligently attempt to adhere to [the deadlines in the scheduling order] 5 throughout the subsequent course of the litigation." Morgal v. Maricopa Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 284 F.R.D. 452, 460 (D. Ariz. 2012). 6 7 Good cause exists for modification of the briefing schedule deadlines here because (1) g the parties diligently engaged in and completed discovery here, (2) THT’s counsel learned 9 yesterday evening that a matter out of his control will prevent him from completing motions 10 this week; (3) Plaintiffs’ counsel and THT’s counsel conferred nearly immediately on this 11 issue; and (4) they are diligent in requesting this extension before the deadline expires on July 24, 2025. 13 On Saturday evening, July 19, 2025, THT’s counsel learned his mother-in-law had been 14 involved in a bike accident. As a result of the accident, she broke her tibia and fibula and has 15 undergone one surgery with a second scheduled later this week. THT’s counsel’s mother-in- 16 law assists as a caretaker for THT’s counsel’s children and will be unable to assist this week 17 while THT’s counsel’s wife is away on a pre-planned work-related trip. This means the 18 additional time THT’s counsel was to dedicate to completion of the replies this week will be 19 significantly reduced. Given that briefing has been extensive already, the replies require 0 significant time and attention to detail for completion. 1 THT’s counsel contacted Plaintiffs’ counsel this morning, July 21, 2025, concerning this issue. Plaintiffs’ counsel approved the filing of this stipulation on the same date. 3 The parties are only requesting a five-day extension of each of the current deadline because they want to be sure there is still urgency in completing the briefing on these six B96 motions. %6 The parties have been diligent throughout this litigation and are now diligent in seeking 7 |\an extension of the lone remaining date on the current briefing schedule due to the unforeseen 3 2g {events affecting THT’s counsel’s childcare situation. With these aims in mind, the Parties

1 propose the following revised scheduling order, with a modified briefing schedule for 2 ||oppositions and replies: 3 Il. PROPOSED DATES FOR REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER 4 DEADLINE CURRENT DEADLINE NEW PROPOSED DEADLINE 5 Replies in Support of July 24, 2025 July 29, 2025 6 Motion Filed 7 /// 8 9 10 |\/// 1] V2 Wiis 13 14 /// 15 16 17 |I/// 18 19 \\/// 20 21 /// 22 23 ///

|I///

1 The parties are requesting only five (5) additional calendar days on the unexpired deadlines 9 ||as set out above. They are making this request in good faith and not to delay these proceedings. Wer 3 |/it not for the unforeseen circumstance noted in Section II above, this extension would have been 4 || unnecessary. > Dated: July 21, 2025 Dated: July 21, 2025 6 /s/ Nathan Ring /s/ Gene Stonebarger 7 || Nathan R. Ring Gene Stonebarger Nevada Bar No. 12078 Stonebarger Law APC 8 REESE RING VELTO, PLLC 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100 9 3100 W. Charleston Blvd., Ste. 208 Folsom, California 95630 Las Vegas, NV 89102 10 || Attorneys for Teachers Health Trust JACK C. JUAN HAYES WAKAYAMA JUAN 11 5798 S Durango Drive, Ste 105 Las Vegas, Nevada 89113 12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 13 ORDER 14 — 15 Having considered the stipulation of the parties and the representations therein, and with

16 good cause appearing, it is hereby ordered that the following deadlines are now set:

17 DEADLINE CURRENT DEADLINE NEW PROPOSED DEADLINE 18 Replies in Support of July 24, 2025 July 29, 2025 19 Motion Filed 20 21 ||ITIS SO ORDERED: 22 DATED: July 22, 2025 (i.Ean- 24 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE