Urban Outfitters, Inc. v. United Construction Co.

Opinion

1 Pamela A. McKay (SBN 7812) MCKAY LAW FIRM, CHTD. 2 8440 W. Lake Mead Blvd., Suite 112 Las Vegas, NV 89128 3 Phone: 702-835-6956 Fax: 702- 835-6957 4 pmckay@mckaylawfirmchtd.com 5 Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Claimant UNITED CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 10 URBAN OUTFITTERS, INC., a Pennsylvania ) CASE NO. 3:21-cv-00109-MMD-CLB Corporation, ) 11 ) Plaintiff, )ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION 12 )TO CONTINUE DEADLINE FOR 13 vs. ) )UNITED CONSTRUCTION CO. TO DERMODY OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, )FILE MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE 14 a Delaware limited liability company; )ORDER REGARDING DISPUTED UNITED CONSTRUCTION CO., a Nevada )DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE TO 15 Corporation, GAF MATERIALS ) )PLAINTIFF’S SUBPOENA DUCES 16 CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; )TECUM TO TRINITY | ERD and DOES I through X, ) 17 ) Defendants. ) 18 _____________________________________ ) ) 19 DERMODY OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, ) a Delaware limited liability company, ) 20 ) ) Third-Party Plaintiff, 21 ) ) 22 vs. ) ) 23 D&D ROOFING AND SHEET METAL, INC., ) ) 24 a Nevada corporation; ATLAS ) CONTRACTORS, INC., a Nevada ) 25 corporation, ) Third-Party Defendants. ) 26 ) ) 27 ______________________________________ ) UNITED CONSTRUCTION CO., a Nevada ) 28 corporation, ) ) ) 1 Defendant/Cross-Claimant ) ) 2 vs. ) ) 3 ) D&D ROOFING AND SHEET METAL, INC., ) 4 a Nevada corporation; ATLAS ) CONTRACTORS, INC. a Nevada corporation, ) 5 ) ) 6 Cross-Defendants. ) ______________________________________ ) 7 8 STIPULATION TO CONTINUE DEADLINE FOR UNITED CONSTRUCTION CO. TO FILE MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 9 REGARDING DISPUTED DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM TO TRINITY | ERD 10 11 Plaintiff, Urban Outfitters, Inc. (“Plaintiff”), by and through its counsel of record, Brian K. 12 Walters, Esq. of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, and Defendant, United Construction Co. 13 (“United”), by and through its counsel of record, Robert N. Eaton, Esq. of Lincoln, Gustafson & 14 Cercos, LLP, and Pamela A. McKay, Esq. of McKay Law Firm, Chtd., hereby stipulate as 15 follows. 16 1. Plaintiff subpoenaed documents from Trinity | ERD regarding certain consulting services it 17 provided to United related to roof damage and repairs at Plaintiff’s distribution facility. 18 2. United did not object to the subpoena duces tecum. 19 3. In response to the subpoena duces tecum, Trinity | ERD produced to Plaintiff the 20 documents it prepared on behalf of United related to roof damage and repairs at Plaintiff’s 21 distribution facility. Some of the documents provided were not disclosed to the parties in this 22 suit. 23 4. When counsel for United learned that Urban had obtained the referenced documents, counsel objected to their disclosure pursuant to FRCP 45(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff postponed 24 disclosure of the documents pending informal discovery resolution efforts. 25 5. On August 15, 2022, Plaintiff provided counsel for United with an electronic link to the 26 referenced documents for their review in order to facilitate the informal discovery resolution 27 process. 28 1 6. United contends some of the documents Trinity | ERD provided in response to Plaintiff’s 2 subpoena duces tecum are protected from disclosure pursuant to the federal work product 3 doctrine. Plaintiff disagrees. 4 7. After the September 2, 2022, discovery hearing conducted before the Honorable U.S. 5 Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin, Plaintiff’s counsel and United’s counsel, further met and 6 conferred on the discovery dispute regarding the documents Trinity | ERD produced in response 7 to the subpoena duces tecum. 8 8. United’s counsel requested additional time to evaluate the documents to determine if a 9 resolution was possible. Counsel for Plaintiff agreed to permit United’s counsel additional time 10 to review the documents. The parties agreed to extend the briefing schedule on United’s Motion 11 for Protective Order. 12 9. Plaintiff and United, through their respective counsel, agreed to further meet and confer in an effort to avoid the court’s involvement, which will require the deadline for United to file a 13 Motion for Protective Order to be extended from the time discussed during the September 2, 14 2022 discovery dispute hearing; specifically, 15-days from September 2, 2022, which is 15 September 16, 2022. 16 / / / 17 / / / 18 / / / 19 / / / 20 / / / 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 1 10. Plaintiff and United agree to extend the deadline to file a Motion for Protective Order 2 || regarding certain disputed documents obtained from Trinity | ERD from September 16, 2022 3 || to September 30, 2022, if needed. 4 IT ISSO STIPULATED. 5 |] GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP MCKAY LAW FIRM, CHTD. 6 /s/ Brian K. Walters /s/ Pamela McKay By: By: BRIAN K. WALTERS (SBN 9711) PAMELA A. McKAY (SBN 7812) 8 300 South 4" Street, Ste. 1550 8440 W. Lake Mead Blvd., Ste. 112 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Las Vegas, NV 89128 9 10 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Claimant, URBAN OUTFITTERS, INC. UNITED CONSTRUCTION CO. 11 LINCOLN GUSTAFSON & CERCOS, LLP 12 /s/ Robert N. Eaton 13 By: 14 ROBERT N. EATON (SBN 9547) 3960 Howard Hughes Pkwy, Ste. 200 15 Las Vegas, NV 89169 16 Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Claimant, WW UNITED CONSTRUCTION, CO. ORDER 18 —— IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 . 20 21 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 93 || DATED: September 15, 2022 24 25 26 27 28