1 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership 2 Including Professional Corporations POLLY TOWILL, pro hac vice 3 ptowill@sheppardmullin.com HEATHER L. PLOCKY, pro hac vice 4 hplocky@sheppardmullin.com ALLISON C. WONG, pro hac vice 5 acwong@sheppardmullin.com 350 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor 6 Los Angeles, California 90071-3460 Telephone: 213.620.1780 7 Facsimile: 213.620.1398 8 GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP SEAN P. FLYNN, Nevada Bar No. 15408 9 sflynn@grsm.com 1 East Liberty Street, Suite 424 10 Reno, Nevada 89501 Telephone: 775.324.9800 11 Attorneys for Third-Party Defendant 12 NORTHWESTERN INDUSTRIES-ARIZONA, INC. 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 15 THE WHITING-TURNER CONTRACTING Case No. 2:25-cv-00111-ART-DJA 16 COMPANY, a Maryland corporation, JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 17 Plaintiff, ORDER TO AMEND THE SCHEDULING ORDER 18 v. [FIRST REQUEST] 19 MOLLERUP GLASS COMPANY, a Utah corporation; EMPLOYERS MUTUAL The Hon. Anne R. Traum 20 CASUALTY COMPANY, an Iowa corporation; and DOES 1-25, inclusive, 21 Defendants. 22 MOLLERUP GLASS COMPANY, a Utah 23 corporation, 24 Third Party Plaintiff, 25 v. 26 NORTHWESTERN INDUSTRIES- ARIZONA, INC, an Arizona corporation; 27 DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, 1 This Joint Stipulation to Amend the Scheduling Order is filed pursuant to Local Rule 26-3 2 by third-party defendant Northwestern Industries-Arizona, Inc. (“NWI”), plaintiff The Whiting- 3 Turner Contracting Company (“WTCC”), defendant and third-party plaintiff Mollerup Glass 4 Company (“Mollerup”), and defendant Employers Mutual Casualty Company (“EMCC”) 5 (collectively, the “Parties”). This is the Parties’ first request to amend the Scheduling Order. The 6 Parties through their counsel of record hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 7 I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 8 On December 6, 2024, WTCC filed a complaint against Mollerup and EMCC in the Eighth 9 Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada. On January 17, 2025, Mollerup and EMCC 10 removed the action to this Court. (Dkt. 1.). As described in the Joint Status Report filed on 11 February 12, 2025 (Dkt. 8), this action arises out of the construction of a high-rise commercial 12 office building owned by the Howard Hughes Corporation or its affiliated/related entities (“Project 13 Owner”). WTCC, as Construction Manager, contracted with Defendant Mollerup to provide glass 14 and glazing, including the installation of insulated glass units (“IGUs”) manufactured by others. 15 Briefly, WTCC alleges that (i) a number of IGUs “have shattered randomly throughout the Subject 16 Property,” and (ii) Mollerup breached and/or is in default of the parties’ subcontract by failing or 17 refusing to replace all of the IGUs (including unbroken IGUs that form the vast majority of the 18 IGUs on the Project). 19 By way of its Answer and Third-Party Complaint (“TPC”) (Dkt. 11), filed on February 13, 20 2025, Mollerup (i) denies that it caused WTCC’s otherwise voluntary removal and replacement of 21 unbroken IGUs, (ii) affirmatively contends that it (Mollerup) has promptly removed and replaced 22 each and every broken IGU at its own expense and that promptly repairing and replacing each and 23 every broken IGU at its own expense, and that WTCC’s unreasonable demand for replacement of 24 all unbroken IGUs (which form the vast majority of IGUs at the Project) has prevented resolution 25 of the dispute, and (iii) asserts NWI’s pass-through and direct liability, the manufacturer of the 26 IGUs, for any damages Mollerup may be held to WTCC as well as its own costs and expenses 27 arising from these events. WTCC disputes Mollerup’s various contentions and assertions and 1 asserts that the removal and replacement of the IGUs was reasonable given the continued random 2 shattering of glass. 3 NWI waived service on March 13, 2025, and subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the 4 TPC in its entirety on May 9, 2025. (Dkt. 21.) NWI’s motion to dismiss was fully briefed on June 5 20, 2025, and is still pending before this Court. (Dkt. 32.) NWI disputes the allegations in the 6 TPC and will vigorously defend itself. 7 Prior to NWI’s first appearance in this action, on April 29, 2025, this Court issued the 8 Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order submitted by WTCC, Mollerup and EMCC. (Dkt. 20.) 9 II. DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO DATE 10 The Parties have served extensive initial disclosures, engaged in written discovery and 11 scheduled an in-person inspection. Voluminous document productions have been served with 12 initial disclosures, which included investigative reports, emails, photos and testing results. 13 On June 26, 2025, Mollerup filed and served a notice of visual inspection on WTCC 14 pertaining to approximately 60 IGUs removed from the Project by WTCC’s subcontractor, Clear 15 Solutions Group (“Clear Solutions”), which WTCC has stored at Clear Solutions’ facility in Las 16 Vegas. (Dkt. 33.) As noted in that inspection notice, the inspection was to be visual only, the 17 purpose of which was to “assess and evaluate the general condition of the [IGUs], their storage, 18 the condition of the premises in which they are stored and the appropriateness of the premises for 19 more detailed inspection and/or testing to be held at a later date.” Stated differently, the initial 20 inspection was preliminary to, and in preparation for, a more detailed inspection of the IGUs by 21 Mollerup’s experts and, by extension and invitation, experts for the other parties (the “Detailed 22 Inspection”). Expert analysis and opinion pertaining to the IGUs and alleged manufacturing 23 defects is highly important to this action. 24 On August 6, 2025, NWI propounded its first set of interrogatories, requests for production 25 and requests for admission on Mollerup. Mollerup accordingly responded to this first set of 26 discovery on September 5. NWI propounded its first set of interrogatories and requests for 27 production on EMCC on September 11, 2025. On September 18, 2025, Mollerup propounded its 1 NWI propounded its first set of interrogatories, requests for production and requests for admission 2 on WTCC. 3 On September 16, 2025, and while the parties were negotiating and coordinating the 4 Detailed Inspection, NWI served a notice of visual inspection on WTCC. The Parties spent 5 several weeks coordinating availability with numerous experts on dates and have just finalized an 6 in-person inspection on November 18, 19 and 20 (and November 21 if necessary). 7 III. DISCOVERY THAT REMAINS TO BE COMPLETED 8 All Parties anticipate further written discovery and foresee the need to meet and confer 9 regarding responses. At present, EMCC’s responses to NWI’s outstanding first set of 10 interrogatories and requests for production are due October 13, 2025. Similarly, NWI and WTCC 11 must respond to Mollerup’s outstanding first set of interrogatories and requests for production by 12 October 18, 2025. WTCC’s responses to NWI’s first set of interrogatories, requests for 13 production and requests for admission are due November 3, 2026. 14 The Parties also anticipate taking fact witness and expert depositions given that NWI’s 15 initial disclosures identified eight (8) witnesses, Mollerup’s initial disclosures identified twenty 16 (20)witnesses, WTCC’s initial disclosures identified four (4) witnesses, and EMCC’s initial 17 disclosures identified five (5) witnesses. Further, the Parties’ initial disclosures identified several 18 investigative reports, which will likely lead to extensive expert discovery and depositions. 19 Additionally, the visual inspection is scheduled for November 18-20, and the parties 20 anticipate potential additional inspections or testing thereafter. The Parties anticipate the results of 21 such inspections and testing to generate the need for further discovery. 22 IV.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership 2 Including Professional Corporations POLLY TOWILL, pro hac vice 3 ptowill@sheppardmullin.com HEATHER L. PLOCKY, pro hac vice 4 hplocky@sheppardmullin.com ALLISON C. WONG, pro hac vice 5 acwong@sheppardmullin.com 350 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor 6 Los Angeles, California 90071-3460 Telephone: 213.620.1780 7 Facsimile: 213.620.1398 8 GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP SEAN P. FLYNN, Nevada Bar No. 15408 9 sflynn@grsm.com 1 East Liberty Street, Suite 424 10 Reno, Nevada 89501 Telephone: 775.324.9800 11 Attorneys for Third-Party Defendant 12 NORTHWESTERN INDUSTRIES-ARIZONA, INC. 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 15 THE WHITING-TURNER CONTRACTING Case No. 2:25-cv-00111-ART-DJA 16 COMPANY, a Maryland corporation, JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 17 Plaintiff, ORDER TO AMEND THE SCHEDULING ORDER 18 v. [FIRST REQUEST] 19 MOLLERUP GLASS COMPANY, a Utah corporation; EMPLOYERS MUTUAL The Hon. Anne R. Traum 20 CASUALTY COMPANY, an Iowa corporation; and DOES 1-25, inclusive, 21 Defendants. 22 MOLLERUP GLASS COMPANY, a Utah 23 corporation, 24 Third Party Plaintiff, 25 v. 26 NORTHWESTERN INDUSTRIES- ARIZONA, INC, an Arizona corporation; 27 DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, 1 This Joint Stipulation to Amend the Scheduling Order is filed pursuant to Local Rule 26-3 2 by third-party defendant Northwestern Industries-Arizona, Inc. (“NWI”), plaintiff The Whiting- 3 Turner Contracting Company (“WTCC”), defendant and third-party plaintiff Mollerup Glass 4 Company (“Mollerup”), and defendant Employers Mutual Casualty Company (“EMCC”) 5 (collectively, the “Parties”). This is the Parties’ first request to amend the Scheduling Order. The 6 Parties through their counsel of record hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 7 I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 8 On December 6, 2024, WTCC filed a complaint against Mollerup and EMCC in the Eighth 9 Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada. On January 17, 2025, Mollerup and EMCC 10 removed the action to this Court. (Dkt. 1.). As described in the Joint Status Report filed on 11 February 12, 2025 (Dkt. 8), this action arises out of the construction of a high-rise commercial 12 office building owned by the Howard Hughes Corporation or its affiliated/related entities (“Project 13 Owner”). WTCC, as Construction Manager, contracted with Defendant Mollerup to provide glass 14 and glazing, including the installation of insulated glass units (“IGUs”) manufactured by others. 15 Briefly, WTCC alleges that (i) a number of IGUs “have shattered randomly throughout the Subject 16 Property,” and (ii) Mollerup breached and/or is in default of the parties’ subcontract by failing or 17 refusing to replace all of the IGUs (including unbroken IGUs that form the vast majority of the 18 IGUs on the Project). 19 By way of its Answer and Third-Party Complaint (“TPC”) (Dkt. 11), filed on February 13, 20 2025, Mollerup (i) denies that it caused WTCC’s otherwise voluntary removal and replacement of 21 unbroken IGUs, (ii) affirmatively contends that it (Mollerup) has promptly removed and replaced 22 each and every broken IGU at its own expense and that promptly repairing and replacing each and 23 every broken IGU at its own expense, and that WTCC’s unreasonable demand for replacement of 24 all unbroken IGUs (which form the vast majority of IGUs at the Project) has prevented resolution 25 of the dispute, and (iii) asserts NWI’s pass-through and direct liability, the manufacturer of the 26 IGUs, for any damages Mollerup may be held to WTCC as well as its own costs and expenses 27 arising from these events. WTCC disputes Mollerup’s various contentions and assertions and 1 asserts that the removal and replacement of the IGUs was reasonable given the continued random 2 shattering of glass. 3 NWI waived service on March 13, 2025, and subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the 4 TPC in its entirety on May 9, 2025. (Dkt. 21.) NWI’s motion to dismiss was fully briefed on June 5 20, 2025, and is still pending before this Court. (Dkt. 32.) NWI disputes the allegations in the 6 TPC and will vigorously defend itself. 7 Prior to NWI’s first appearance in this action, on April 29, 2025, this Court issued the 8 Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order submitted by WTCC, Mollerup and EMCC. (Dkt. 20.) 9 II. DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO DATE 10 The Parties have served extensive initial disclosures, engaged in written discovery and 11 scheduled an in-person inspection. Voluminous document productions have been served with 12 initial disclosures, which included investigative reports, emails, photos and testing results. 13 On June 26, 2025, Mollerup filed and served a notice of visual inspection on WTCC 14 pertaining to approximately 60 IGUs removed from the Project by WTCC’s subcontractor, Clear 15 Solutions Group (“Clear Solutions”), which WTCC has stored at Clear Solutions’ facility in Las 16 Vegas. (Dkt. 33.) As noted in that inspection notice, the inspection was to be visual only, the 17 purpose of which was to “assess and evaluate the general condition of the [IGUs], their storage, 18 the condition of the premises in which they are stored and the appropriateness of the premises for 19 more detailed inspection and/or testing to be held at a later date.” Stated differently, the initial 20 inspection was preliminary to, and in preparation for, a more detailed inspection of the IGUs by 21 Mollerup’s experts and, by extension and invitation, experts for the other parties (the “Detailed 22 Inspection”). Expert analysis and opinion pertaining to the IGUs and alleged manufacturing 23 defects is highly important to this action. 24 On August 6, 2025, NWI propounded its first set of interrogatories, requests for production 25 and requests for admission on Mollerup. Mollerup accordingly responded to this first set of 26 discovery on September 5. NWI propounded its first set of interrogatories and requests for 27 production on EMCC on September 11, 2025. On September 18, 2025, Mollerup propounded its 1 NWI propounded its first set of interrogatories, requests for production and requests for admission 2 on WTCC. 3 On September 16, 2025, and while the parties were negotiating and coordinating the 4 Detailed Inspection, NWI served a notice of visual inspection on WTCC. The Parties spent 5 several weeks coordinating availability with numerous experts on dates and have just finalized an 6 in-person inspection on November 18, 19 and 20 (and November 21 if necessary). 7 III. DISCOVERY THAT REMAINS TO BE COMPLETED 8 All Parties anticipate further written discovery and foresee the need to meet and confer 9 regarding responses. At present, EMCC’s responses to NWI’s outstanding first set of 10 interrogatories and requests for production are due October 13, 2025. Similarly, NWI and WTCC 11 must respond to Mollerup’s outstanding first set of interrogatories and requests for production by 12 October 18, 2025. WTCC’s responses to NWI’s first set of interrogatories, requests for 13 production and requests for admission are due November 3, 2026. 14 The Parties also anticipate taking fact witness and expert depositions given that NWI’s 15 initial disclosures identified eight (8) witnesses, Mollerup’s initial disclosures identified twenty 16 (20)witnesses, WTCC’s initial disclosures identified four (4) witnesses, and EMCC’s initial 17 disclosures identified five (5) witnesses. Further, the Parties’ initial disclosures identified several 18 investigative reports, which will likely lead to extensive expert discovery and depositions. 19 Additionally, the visual inspection is scheduled for November 18-20, and the parties 20 anticipate potential additional inspections or testing thereafter. The Parties anticipate the results of 21 such inspections and testing to generate the need for further discovery. 22 IV. REASONS WHY THE SCHEDULING ORDER SHOULD BE AMENDED 23 The current initial expert disclosure deadline is November 13, 2025; however, due to the 24 schedules of the various parties and, in particular, the numerous experts, the visual inspection is 25 scheduled for November 18-20, 2025, after the expert disclosure deadline. Given that this 26 inspection will necessarily inform the expert disclosures and further discovery, the Parties agree 27 that the current expert deadlines and the ultimate discovery cut-off of January 12, 2026 are not 1 This is an expert driven case. As such, the Parties have had to expend significant time 2 researching and retaining experts, reviewing the previously prepared reports and materials 3 identified in the Parties’ initial disclosures, and coordinating the upcoming inspection. 4 In addition, NWI had not yet appeared in the action when the Scheduling Order was 5 entered. Further, the briefing on NWI’s motion to dismiss was not completed until late June, and 6 a decision on the motion could alter the scope of the discovery and the case. Finally, there is no 7 risk of prejudice, as all Parties agree that more time is needed to complete discovery. 8 V. GOOD CAUSE TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE TO AMEND THE PLEADINGS AND ADD PARTIES 9 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) governs the modification of scheduling orders 10 and discovery plans. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) provides that “[a] schedule may be modified only for 11 good cause and with the judge's consent.” The good cause inquiry focuses primarily on the 12 movant’s diligence. DRK Photo v. McGraw-Hill Global Educ. Holdings, LLC, 870 F.3d 978, 989 13 (9th Cir. 2017). Additionally, Local Rule 26-3 supplements Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 and provides that 14 discovery plans and scheduling orders may be modified for good cause, provided that a motion to 15 extend is made “no later than 21 days before the expiration of the subject deadline.” See LR 26-3; 16 see also LR IA 6-1. “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly 17 across procedural and statutory contexts. See Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 18 1259 (9th Cir. 2010). Requests for extensions of time made before the applicable deadline has 19 passed should "normally ... be granted in the absence of bad faith on the part of the party seeking 20 relief or prejudice to the adverse party.” Id. (citing 4B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, 21 Federal Practice and Procedure § 1165 (3d ed. 2004)). 22 Here, good cause exists to extend the deadline for parties to amend their pleadings or add 23 parties. Although the parties have been in regular communication and have been diligent in 24 engaging in the preliminary aspects of discovery, investigation and discovery is on-going. 25 Additionally, expert analysis of the IGUs is scheduled for November 18-21, 2025. Additional 26 written discovery and the initiation of discovery depositions may identify additional potential 27 1 causes of action and/or parties. Finally, there is no risk of prejudice to the Parties because they 2 agree additional time is needed. 3 VI. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING REMAINING DISCOVERY 4 The Parties request an extension to allow them to resolve any current discovery disputes, 5 complete additional written discovery, conduct depositions, disclose expert witnesses and produce 6 reports, and conduct expert discovery. Additionally, the Parties request that the dispositive motion 7 cut-off be extended to allow for additional time after the close of discovery and the filing of any 8 dispositive motions. Accordingly, the proposed deadlines are as follows: 9 DATE EVENT PROPOSED DATE October 14, Amendment of Pleadings and Addition February 13, 2026 10 2025 of Parties 11 November 13, Initial Expert Disclosures March 13, 2026 2025 12 December 12, Rebuttal Expert Disclosures April 10, 2026 2025 13 December 22, Deadline To File Request For Discovery May 15, 2026 14 2025 Cut-Off Extension January 12, Discovery Cut-Off June 5, 2026 15 2026 January 14, Dispositive Motion Cut-Off July 2, 2026 16 2026 17 March 13, Joint Pretrial Order Deadline August 7, 2026 2026 18 19 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 DATED this 13th day of October 2025. 2 /s/ Eric Zimbelman /s/ Heather L. Plocky 3 Eric Zimbelman, Nevada Bar No. 9407 Heather L. Plocky, pro hac vice ezimbelman@peelbrimley.com hplocky@sheppardmullin.com 4 PEEL BRIMLEY LLP SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & 5 3333 E. Serene Avenue, Suite 200 HAMPTON LLP Henderson, Nevada 89074-6571 350 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor 6 Telephone: 702.990.7272 Los Angeles, California 90071-3460 Telephone: 213.620.1780 7 Facsimile: 702.990.7273 Facsimile: 213.620.1398 8 Attorneys for Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff Sean P. Flynn, Nevada Bar No. 15408 MOLLERUP GLASS COMPANY GORDON REES SCULLY 9 MANSUKHANI LLP sflynn@grsm.com 1 East Liberty Street, Suite 424 10 Reno, Nevada 89501 Telephone: 775.324.9800 11 Attorneys for Third-Party Defendant 12 NORTHWESTERN INDUSTRIES- ARIZONA, INC. 13 14 /s/ Kurt C. Faux /s/ Pieter M. O’Leary 15 Kurt C. Faux, Nevada Bar No. 3407 Pieter M. O’Leary, Nevada Bar No. 15297 kfaux@fauxlaw.com poleary@lee-lawfirm.com 16 THE FAUX LAW GROUP LEE, LANDRUM & INGLE 7575 Vegas Drive, Suite 150 17 2625 N. Green Valley Pkwy, Suite 100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89128 Henderson, Nevada 89014 Telephone: 702.880.9750 18 Telephone: 702.458.5790 Facsimile: 702.314.1210 Facsimile: 702.458.5794 19 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Attorneys for Defendant, THE WHITING-TURNER 20 EMPLOYERS MUTUAL CONTRACTING COMPANY 21 CASUALTY COMPANY 22 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED: 25 ______________________________________ 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DATED: 10/14/2025 27