LOBELLO LAW OFFICESLLC 1 Charles C. LoBello, NBN 5052 2 1785 East Sahara Ave.,Ste. 157 Las Vegas, Nevada 89104 3 Telephone:(702) 733-2800 Facsimile: (702) 425-9883 4 clobello@lobellolawlv.com 5 GALLIANWELKER& ASSOCIATES,L.C. 6 Michael I.Welker, NBN 7950 Nathan E. Lawrence, NBN 15060 7 730 Las Vegas Blvd. S., Ste. 104 8 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Telephone:(702) 892-3500 9 Facsimile: (702) 386-1946 welker@utahcase.com 10 nlawrence@vegascase.com 11 Attorneys for Plaintiff 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 14 15 SHARON STOLTZFUS, an individual; Case No.: 2:23-cv-01100-CDS-BNW 16 Plaintiff, 17 v. STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 18 EXTEND THE DISCOVERY 19 BROTHERHOOD MUTUAL INSURANCE DEADLINES COMPANY, an Indianainsurance company; 20 BROTHERHOOD MUTUAL INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC, an Indiana limitedliability (First Request) 21 company;and ROE BUSINESS ENTITIES I 22 to X, inclusive; collectively, 23 Defendants. 24 25 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. (“FRCP”) 6(b)(1) and Local Rules IA 6-1, IA 6-2, and 26-3, 26 Plaintiff SHARON STOLTZFUS (“Plaintiff” or “Mrs. Stoltzfus”), by and through her attorneys 27 of the law firms of LOBELLO LAW OFFICES LLC and GALLIAN WELKER & ASSOCIATES, L.C., 28 and Defendants BROTHERHOOD MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and 1 BROTHERHOOD MUTUAL INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”), by 2 and through their counsel, CHRISTIAN, KRAVITZ, DICHTER, JOHNSON & SLUGA, LLC, hereby 3 submitthisStipulation and Order toExtend theDiscovery Deadlines. 4 This is the first stipulation to extend the discovery deadline, and this stipulation is 5 presented to the Court in advance of the currently calendared close of discovery on October 14, 6 2024. Fortheforegoingreasonsandasismorefullyexplainedbelow,thePartiesstipulatetoand 7 respectfullyrequest thatthis Courtextend the discovery and associated deadlines in this matter. 8 I. PROCEDURALHISTORY 9 1. On June 16, 2023, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing her Complaint under the 10 EighthJudicialDistrict,ClarkCounty,StateofNevadaCaseNo.CaseNo.A-23-872524-C. 11 2. OnJuly14,2023,DefendantfiledaNoticeofRemoval[ECFNo.1]ofCaseNo.A- 12 23-872524-CfromtheEighthJudicialDistrict,ClarkCounty,State CourtofNevada,totheUnited 13 StatesDistrictCourt,fortheDistrictofNevada,pursuantto28U.S.C.§§1332(d)and1441. 14 3. On August 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling 15 Order [ECF No. 6], as later amended on August 11, 2023 [ECF No. 8] to which was granted on 16 August 14, 2023 [ECF. No. 9], and the partiesthereafter exchanged initial disclosures. 17 4. On February 5, 2024, Defendant filed a Stipulation and Order to Dismiss 18 Defendantwithout Prejudice (Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Services,LLC [ECF. No. 14]. 19 5. On April 25, 2024, Defendant submitted a Stipulated Protective Order [ECF No. 20 17]pursuanttoFederalRuleofCivilProcedure26(c),followingwhichtheCourtgrantedonApril 21 26, 2024 [ECF No. 18]. 22 II. LEGALSTANDARD 23 Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 6(b)(1) governs extensions of time and allows, in relevant part, that 24 “[w]henanactmayormustbedonewithinaspecifiedtime,thecourtmay,forgoodcause,extend 25 thetime:(A)withorwithoutmotionornoticeifthecourtacts,orifarequestismade,beforethe 26 original time or its extension expires.” If additional time for any purpose is needed, the proper 27 procedure is to present a request for extension of time before the time fixed has expired. Canup 28 v. Mississippi Val. Barge Line Co., 31 F.R.D. 282 (W.D. Pa. 1962). An extension of time may 1 always be sought and is usually granted on a showing of good cause if timely made under 2 subdivision (b)(1) of [FRCP 6]. Creedon v. Taubman, 8 F.R.D. 268 (N.D. Ohio 1947). Also, a 3 district court possesses the inherent power to control its own docket. Hamilton Copper & Steel 4 Corp. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 898 F.2d 1428, 1429 (9th Cir. 1990); Olivia v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 5 272, 273 (9th Cir. 1992). 6 LRIA6-1additionallyrequiresthatamotiontoextendtimemuststatethereasonsforthe 7 extensionrequestedandwillnotbegrantedifrequestedaftertheexpirationofthespecifiedperiod 8 unless the movant demonstrates that the failure to file the motion before the deadline expired 9 resulted because of excusable neglect. LR 26-3 requires that a motion to extend any date set by 10 the discovery plan, scheduling order, or other order must, as well as satisfying the requirements 11 of LR IA 6-1, demonstrate good cause for the extension, and such a motion filed after the 12 expiration of the deadline will not be granted unless the movant demonstrates that the failure to 13 act resultedfrom excusable neglect. 14 Finally, LR 26-3 lists four factors that are considered upon adjudication of a motion to 15 extend a discovery deadline: (a) a statement specifying the discovery completed; (b) a specific 16 description of the discovery that remains to be completed; (c) the reasons why the deadline was 17 not satisfied or the remaining discovery was not completed within the time limits set by the 18 discovery plan; and (d) aproposed schedule for completing all remainingdiscovery. 19 20 III. ARGUMENT 21 A. TheFourFactorsContainedWithinLR26-3AreSatisfied,andtheParties 22 Show Good Cause for Modifying the Scheduling Order. 23 1. DiscoveryCompletedto Date: 24 Pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(1), Plaintiff and Defendant exchanged their respective initial 25 disclosures of persons likely to have discoverable information; documents, electronically stored 26 information, and tangible things; computation of damages, and applicable insurance coverage. 27 Plaintiff and Defendant have each supplemented their FRCP 26 disclosures as required over the 28 course ofthe intervening months. 1 2. DiscoveryRemaining: 2 Thedepositionoftheprimaryclaimsadjusteroftheclaimatissueistentativelyscheduled 3 for September 25, 2024. The deposition of the adjuster’s supervisor may be needed in early 4 October, depending on the testimony of the adjuster. Expert disclosures and depositions will 5 follow thereafter. 6 3. Reasons Why Deadline Will Not Be Satisfied or Remaining Discovery 7 Cannot Be CompletedWithin Current TimeLimits: 8 The partiesare workingcooperatively to complete discoveryand schedule depositions of 9 witnesses. The time to effectively and fully complete this process will exceed the currently 10 allowed time inasmuch as multiple attempts to schedule and take the deposition of the primary 11 adjustersinceJunehavebeenunsuccessfulduetoschedulingconflicts. Thedepositionisneeded 12 forevaluationbytheexpertsbeforefinalarticulationoftheiropinions. Hencethepartiespropose 13 a60-dayextensionofthecurrentdiscoverydeadlineandofthecurrentexpertdisclosuredeadline 14 so thatall pertinent information is available for the experts before their disclosuresaredue. 15 Both Plaintiff and Defendant continue to diligently prosecute and defend this action, 16 respectively, and believe it is in the interests of justice that this stipulation is granted. Neither 17 partywillbeprejudicedbythisextensionofthevariousdeadlines. Indeed,theproposedamended 18 schedule does not change the parties’ trialreadiness date. 19 4.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
LOBELLO LAW OFFICESLLC 1 Charles C. LoBello, NBN 5052 2 1785 East Sahara Ave.,Ste. 157 Las Vegas, Nevada 89104 3 Telephone:(702) 733-2800 Facsimile: (702) 425-9883 4 clobello@lobellolawlv.com 5 GALLIANWELKER& ASSOCIATES,L.C. 6 Michael I.Welker, NBN 7950 Nathan E. Lawrence, NBN 15060 7 730 Las Vegas Blvd. S., Ste. 104 8 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Telephone:(702) 892-3500 9 Facsimile: (702) 386-1946 welker@utahcase.com 10 nlawrence@vegascase.com 11 Attorneys for Plaintiff 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 14 15 SHARON STOLTZFUS, an individual; Case No.: 2:23-cv-01100-CDS-BNW 16 Plaintiff, 17 v. STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 18 EXTEND THE DISCOVERY 19 BROTHERHOOD MUTUAL INSURANCE DEADLINES COMPANY, an Indianainsurance company; 20 BROTHERHOOD MUTUAL INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC, an Indiana limitedliability (First Request) 21 company;and ROE BUSINESS ENTITIES I 22 to X, inclusive; collectively, 23 Defendants. 24 25 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. (“FRCP”) 6(b)(1) and Local Rules IA 6-1, IA 6-2, and 26-3, 26 Plaintiff SHARON STOLTZFUS (“Plaintiff” or “Mrs. Stoltzfus”), by and through her attorneys 27 of the law firms of LOBELLO LAW OFFICES LLC and GALLIAN WELKER & ASSOCIATES, L.C., 28 and Defendants BROTHERHOOD MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and 1 BROTHERHOOD MUTUAL INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”), by 2 and through their counsel, CHRISTIAN, KRAVITZ, DICHTER, JOHNSON & SLUGA, LLC, hereby 3 submitthisStipulation and Order toExtend theDiscovery Deadlines. 4 This is the first stipulation to extend the discovery deadline, and this stipulation is 5 presented to the Court in advance of the currently calendared close of discovery on October 14, 6 2024. Fortheforegoingreasonsandasismorefullyexplainedbelow,thePartiesstipulatetoand 7 respectfullyrequest thatthis Courtextend the discovery and associated deadlines in this matter. 8 I. PROCEDURALHISTORY 9 1. On June 16, 2023, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing her Complaint under the 10 EighthJudicialDistrict,ClarkCounty,StateofNevadaCaseNo.CaseNo.A-23-872524-C. 11 2. OnJuly14,2023,DefendantfiledaNoticeofRemoval[ECFNo.1]ofCaseNo.A- 12 23-872524-CfromtheEighthJudicialDistrict,ClarkCounty,State CourtofNevada,totheUnited 13 StatesDistrictCourt,fortheDistrictofNevada,pursuantto28U.S.C.§§1332(d)and1441. 14 3. On August 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling 15 Order [ECF No. 6], as later amended on August 11, 2023 [ECF No. 8] to which was granted on 16 August 14, 2023 [ECF. No. 9], and the partiesthereafter exchanged initial disclosures. 17 4. On February 5, 2024, Defendant filed a Stipulation and Order to Dismiss 18 Defendantwithout Prejudice (Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Services,LLC [ECF. No. 14]. 19 5. On April 25, 2024, Defendant submitted a Stipulated Protective Order [ECF No. 20 17]pursuanttoFederalRuleofCivilProcedure26(c),followingwhichtheCourtgrantedonApril 21 26, 2024 [ECF No. 18]. 22 II. LEGALSTANDARD 23 Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 6(b)(1) governs extensions of time and allows, in relevant part, that 24 “[w]henanactmayormustbedonewithinaspecifiedtime,thecourtmay,forgoodcause,extend 25 thetime:(A)withorwithoutmotionornoticeifthecourtacts,orifarequestismade,beforethe 26 original time or its extension expires.” If additional time for any purpose is needed, the proper 27 procedure is to present a request for extension of time before the time fixed has expired. Canup 28 v. Mississippi Val. Barge Line Co., 31 F.R.D. 282 (W.D. Pa. 1962). An extension of time may 1 always be sought and is usually granted on a showing of good cause if timely made under 2 subdivision (b)(1) of [FRCP 6]. Creedon v. Taubman, 8 F.R.D. 268 (N.D. Ohio 1947). Also, a 3 district court possesses the inherent power to control its own docket. Hamilton Copper & Steel 4 Corp. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 898 F.2d 1428, 1429 (9th Cir. 1990); Olivia v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 5 272, 273 (9th Cir. 1992). 6 LRIA6-1additionallyrequiresthatamotiontoextendtimemuststatethereasonsforthe 7 extensionrequestedandwillnotbegrantedifrequestedaftertheexpirationofthespecifiedperiod 8 unless the movant demonstrates that the failure to file the motion before the deadline expired 9 resulted because of excusable neglect. LR 26-3 requires that a motion to extend any date set by 10 the discovery plan, scheduling order, or other order must, as well as satisfying the requirements 11 of LR IA 6-1, demonstrate good cause for the extension, and such a motion filed after the 12 expiration of the deadline will not be granted unless the movant demonstrates that the failure to 13 act resultedfrom excusable neglect. 14 Finally, LR 26-3 lists four factors that are considered upon adjudication of a motion to 15 extend a discovery deadline: (a) a statement specifying the discovery completed; (b) a specific 16 description of the discovery that remains to be completed; (c) the reasons why the deadline was 17 not satisfied or the remaining discovery was not completed within the time limits set by the 18 discovery plan; and (d) aproposed schedule for completing all remainingdiscovery. 19 20 III. ARGUMENT 21 A. TheFourFactorsContainedWithinLR26-3AreSatisfied,andtheParties 22 Show Good Cause for Modifying the Scheduling Order. 23 1. DiscoveryCompletedto Date: 24 Pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(1), Plaintiff and Defendant exchanged their respective initial 25 disclosures of persons likely to have discoverable information; documents, electronically stored 26 information, and tangible things; computation of damages, and applicable insurance coverage. 27 Plaintiff and Defendant have each supplemented their FRCP 26 disclosures as required over the 28 course ofthe intervening months. 1 2. DiscoveryRemaining: 2 Thedepositionoftheprimaryclaimsadjusteroftheclaimatissueistentativelyscheduled 3 for September 25, 2024. The deposition of the adjuster’s supervisor may be needed in early 4 October, depending on the testimony of the adjuster. Expert disclosures and depositions will 5 follow thereafter. 6 3. Reasons Why Deadline Will Not Be Satisfied or Remaining Discovery 7 Cannot Be CompletedWithin Current TimeLimits: 8 The partiesare workingcooperatively to complete discoveryand schedule depositions of 9 witnesses. The time to effectively and fully complete this process will exceed the currently 10 allowed time inasmuch as multiple attempts to schedule and take the deposition of the primary 11 adjustersinceJunehavebeenunsuccessfulduetoschedulingconflicts. Thedepositionisneeded 12 forevaluationbytheexpertsbeforefinalarticulationoftheiropinions. Hencethepartiespropose 13 a60-dayextensionofthecurrentdiscoverydeadlineandofthecurrentexpertdisclosuredeadline 14 so thatall pertinent information is available for the experts before their disclosuresaredue. 15 Both Plaintiff and Defendant continue to diligently prosecute and defend this action, 16 respectively, and believe it is in the interests of justice that this stipulation is granted. Neither 17 partywillbeprejudicedbythisextensionofthevariousdeadlines. Indeed,theproposedamended 18 schedule does not change the parties’ trialreadiness date. 19 4. roposed Schedule forCompletingRemainingDiscovery: 20 Event Current Deadlines Proposed New Deadlines 21 DeadlinetoDisclose Experts August 15, 2024 October 14,2024 22 DeadlineforRebuttal Experts September 14, 2024 November 15, 2024 23 Discovery Cutoff October 14,2024 December 13, 2024 24 Expert Discovery Cutoff January 14,2025 February 28, 2025 25 DispositiveMotion Deadline February 13,2025 March 14, 2025 26 27 Joint Pretrial Order Deadline March 11, 2025 April 11, 2025 * 28 1 ||* In the event a dispositive motion is under review on April 11, 2025, the Joint Pre-Trial Order 2 || shall be due no later than 30 days after entry of the Court’s order ruling on same. 3 All other discovery dates not referenced herein, as well as the trial readiness date in May 4 2025, remain unchanged. 5 6 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 7 || DATED this 12" day of August 2024. DATED this 12" day of August 2024. 8 GALLIAN WELKER & CIATES, L.C, CHRISTIAN, KRAVITZ, DICHTER, 9 JOHNSON & SLUGA, LLC 10 /s/ Scott B. Van Alfen GALLIAN WELKER & ASSOCIATES, L.C. Tyler J. Watson, NBN 11735 Michael I. Welker, NBN 7950 Scott B. Van Alfen, NBN 5532 = S 13 || Nathan E. Lawrence, NBN 15060 8985 So. Eastern Avenue, Suite 200 = 730 Las Vegas Blvd. S., Ste. 104 Las Vegas, Nevada 89123 a 4 ll Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Telephone: (702) 362-6666 2% 15 || Telephone: (702) 892-3500 Facsimile: (702) 362-2203 Facsimile: (702) 386-1946 Attorneys for Defendant 82 16 || welker@utahcase.com BROTHERHOOD MUTUAL "7 nlawrence@vegascase.com INSURANCE COMPANY and Attorneys for Plaintiff BROTHERHOOD MUTUAL 18 LOBELLO LAW OFFICES LLC INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC 19 || Charles C. LoBello, NBN 5052 1785 East Sahara Ave., Ste. 157 Las Vegas, Nevada 89104 4 Telephone: (702) 733-2800 Facsimile: (702) 425-9883 22 || clobello@lobellolawlv.com 3 Attorneys for Plaintiff IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 DATED: August 13, 2024 27 8 até STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 5 of 5