Jane Doe v. Berry Global, Inc. and Berry Plastics Opco, Inc. and Does 1 through 50

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 30, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00449
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Rachel Mariner, NV Bar No. 16728 1 Robert Montes, Jr., CA Bar No. 159137 (pro hac vice) Ciara Alagao, NV Bar No. 16789 2 RAFII & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1120 N. Town Center Dr., Ste. 130 3 Las Vegas, Nevada 89144 Phone: 725.245.6056 4 Fax: 725.220.1802 rachel@rafiilaw.com 5 robert@rafiilaw.com ciara@rafiilaw.com 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8

9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10 JANE DOE, Case No. 2:25-cv-00449-CDS-MDC

11 Plaintiff, 12 STIPULATION TO EXTEND THE CLOSE OF v. DISCOVERY, DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS 13 DEADLINE, AND JOINT PRE-TRIAL ORDER BERRY GLOBAL, INC., and BERRY 14 PLASTICS OPCO, INC., and DOES 1 (FOURTH REQUEST) through 50, inclusive, 15

16 Defendants.

18 Plaintiff Jane Doe (“Plaintiff”), by and through her attorneys of record, Rachel Mariner, Esq. 19 and Roberto Montes, Jr., of Rafii & Associates, P.C., and Defendants Berry Global, Inc., and Berry 20 Plastics OPCO, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”), by and through their attorneys of record, Elizabeth 21 A. Hanson, Esq. and Megan R. U’Sellis, Esq. of Fisher & Phillips, LLP, hereby stipulate to extend 22 certain deadlines (as addressed below) in the Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (ECF 23 17) (the “Order”). This is the fourth stipulation to extend these deadlines. 24 A. Discovery Completed to Date. 25 To date, the parties have exchanged initial disclosures of documents and witnesses pursuant 26 to FRCP 26(a)(1). On July 22, 2025, the parties filed a corrected stipulation to extend time, which 27 also extended the deadline for completion of discovery to October 29, 2025, and the deadline for the 1 filing of dispositive motions to November 28, 2025 (ECF No. 32). The Court granted this extension 2 in its order on July 28, 2025 (ECF No. 36). 3 On July 31, 2025, the Court conducted the Parties’ Early Neutral Evaluation (“ENE”). At the 4 ENE, the Court determined that additional discovery was necessary before further settlement 5 discussions could be productive. Accordingly, the ENE was continued to October 10, 2025 (ECF 38). 6 Since the ENE, the Parties engaged in discovery including exchanging written discovery. 7 The parties have completed six depositions to date. 8 The Parties agreed that the designation for experts should be done upon the completion of 9 the ENE that was to be held on October 10, 2025. The Court on its own motion vacated the ENE, 10 and therefore, the Parties requested that the designation occur following what was anticipated to be 11 the completion of the now vacated ENE. Plaintiff disclosed her expert witness on October 16, 2025, 12 and is in the process of getting an expert report. 13 The parties continue to engage in discovery. The parties had two meet and confer meetings 14 on October 24, 2025 and October 29, 2025. Both meet and confers occurred to discuss and resolve 15 discovery disputes, and as a result, the parties agreed to stipulate to a modification of the scheduling 16 order, as outlined below. 17 B. Discovery Which Still Needs to Occur. 18 Plaintiff is still in the process of obtaining a complete and chronological record of text 19 messages between herself and Wallace Ryan in the requested format. This includes showing 20 sender/recipient, dates, and times of all messages. Defendants have failed to produce and are in the 21 process of acquiring Plaintiff’s missing time-clock punches. Plaintiff also needs to provide the expert 22 report within 30 days. Upon receipt of the same, Defendant may identify a rebuttal witness and 23 provide a rebuttal report. Accordingly, the parties are requesting an extension to address asserted 24 deficiencies and supplement the discovery/disclosures that have already occurred (per the parties’ 25 meet and confer meetings) and not to conduct additional discovery. 26 / / / 27 / / / 1 C. Reasons Why Discovery Was Not Completed Within Current Schedule. 2 Under Rule 16(b)(4), a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the 3 judge’s consent.” “The primary measure of Rule 16’s ‘good cause’ standard is the moving party’s 4 diligence in attempting to meet the case management order’s requirements.” Edizone, LC v. Cloud 5 Nine, LLC, 505 F.Supp.2d 1226, 1231 (D. Utah 2007). See also Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 6 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the 7 diligence of the party seeking the amendment.”). In addition, the parties recognize the obligation to 8 demonstrate excusable neglect as to why the request to modify the existing discovery deadline was 9 not made 21 days in advance of that deadline. 10 The parties have been actively engaged in discovery and communicative about discovery 11 disputes in their meet and confer meetings. Due to the complexities of metadata, counsel for the parties 12 had to meet and confer to discuss Defendants’ expectations regarding the format for production of 13 requested text messages, and other relevant information to help Plaintiff fulfill the request. Plaintiff 14 requires more time to obtain a complete and chronological record of the aforementioned text messages 15 in the format requested by Defendants as the use of a third-party vendor is required. 16 In regards to the expert witness, Plaintiff disclosed the expert witness previously, but is still 17 in the process of obtaining the expert report to provide to Defendants. Parties have agreed that the 18 expert report can and will be provided within 30 days which is November 26, 2025. 19 In light of the foregoing, the parties believe good cause exists to extend the close of discovery 20 and the deadline for dispositive motions. The Parties further believe they have demonstrated excusable 21 neglect for the delay in requesting this modification due to their diligent efforts to resolve their 22 discovery disputes without Court intervention. The disputes were resolved by the parties through 23 engaging in the meet and confer process. The parties are working in good faith to complete discovery 24 and move this case forward in a reasonable time, and there will be no prejudice to either party in 25 extending the existing deadlines. 26 / / / 27 / / / 1 D. Proposed Schedule for Completing Remaining Discovery. 2 The parties propose the following schedule for completing remaining discovery:

4 Close of Discovery October 29, 2025 December 1, 2025 5 November 28, 2025 December 29, 2025 6 Joint Pre-Trial Order December 29, 2025 January 28, 2026 7 (*) November 28, 2025 being the Family Day holiday followed by a weekend. 8 This stipulation and order is sought in good faith and not for the purpose of delay. 10 || Dated this 29th day of October, 2025. 11 5 RAFT & ASSOCIATES, P.C. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

/s/ Robert Montes /s/ Elizabeth Hanson (with permission) 13 || Rachel Mariner, NV Bar No. 16728 Elizabeth A. Hanson, NV Bar No. 16249 Roberto Montes, Jr., CA Bar No. 159137 Megan R. U’Sellis (Pro Hac Vice) Ciara Alagao, NV Bar No. 16789 300 S. Fourth Street, Suite 1500 3 15 1120 N. Town Center Drive, Ste. 130 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Las Vegas, Nevada 89144 16 Attorneys for Defendants Attorneys for Plaintiff BERRY GLOBAL, INC. AND BERRY 17|| JANE DOE PLASTICS OPCO, INC. 18 19 ORDER 20 || IT IS SO ORDERED. LZ] L

Hon. M cimiliang,D. ouvilier, III UNLAD STAT S STRATE JUDGE 23 Dated: October 30/2025 24 25 26 27 28 KTTDPTIT ATION TORYVYTENY THE CT OSs OF NRC OVARY ANT NISPOSTTIVE