Opinion
2:18-cv-01280-JAD-GWF
08-02-2022
Kathleen Bliss, on behalf of herself, the Proposed Nationwide Rule 23 Class, and the Proposed Nevada Subclass, Plaintiff, v. CoreCivic, Inc., Defendant.
STRUCK LOVE BOJANOWSKI & ACEDO, PLC Daniel P. Struck Rachel Love Jacob B. Lee Ashlee B. Hesman Anne M. Orcutt Eden G. Cohen Gina G. Winspear DENNETT WINSPEAR Attorneys for Defendant CoreCivic, Inc NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP Matthew H. Morgan* MN Bar No. 304657 Anna P. Prakash* MN Bar No. 0351362 Charles A. Delbridge* MN Bar No. 0386639 Rebekah L. Bailey* MN Bar No. 0389599 Charles J. O'Meara* MN Bar No. 0402777 NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP NICHOLS KASTER, LLP Matthew C. Helland Michael Hodgson* MO Bar No. 63677 THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, LLC Lance D. Sandage SANDAGE LAW LLC Joseph K. Eischens* MO Bar No. 44706 LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH K. EISCHENS PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Classes
STRUCK LOVE BOJANOWSKI & ACEDO, PLC Daniel P. Struck Rachel Love Jacob B. Lee Ashlee B. Hesman Anne M. Orcutt Eden G. Cohen
Gina G. Winspear DENNETT WINSPEAR Attorneys for Defendant CoreCivic, Inc
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP Matthew H. Morgan* MN Bar No. 304657 Anna P. Prakash* MN Bar No. 0351362 Charles A. Delbridge* MN Bar No. 0386639 Rebekah L. Bailey* MN Bar No. 0389599 Charles J. O'Meara* MN Bar No. 0402777 NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
NICHOLS KASTER, LLP Matthew C. Helland
Michael Hodgson* MO Bar No. 63677 THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, LLC
Lance D. Sandage SANDAGE LAW LLC
Joseph K. Eischens* MO Bar No. 44706 LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH K. EISCHENS
PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Classes
STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF JOINT STATUS REPORT
This is the first stipulation for extension of time to file this joint status report. Kathleen Bliss (“Plaintiff') and CoreCivic, Inc. (“CoreCivic”) (collectively, the “parties”), through their respective counsel, stipulate and agree to the following:
WHEREAS, on June 2, 2022, the Court ordered, among other things, Defendant to supplement its document production and written discovery responses, ordered the parties to meet and confer, and ordered the parties to file a status report noting, among other things, whether they had scheduled a subsequent meet-and-confer. (ECF No. 200.)
WHEREAS, on July 8, 2022, the parties filed the ordered status report, noting that they had scheduled a subsequent meet-and-confer for July 21 and stating that Defendant would supplement its document production and written responses again on July 28, 2022. (ECF No. 205.)
WHEREAS, the July 8 status report stated the parties' self-imposed deadline of August 1, 2022 to file a subsequent status report. (ECF No. 205.)
WHEREAS, the parties met and conferred on July 21, and Defendant supplemented its document production and written responses on July 28.
WHEREAS, the parties dispute whether Defendant's July 28 production and written responses are consistent with their earlier agreements and dispute whether and to what extent the production and written responses are deficient or compliant.
WHEREAS, the dispute over the July 28 production and written responses covers many topics.
WHEREAS, a subpoena response date related to underlying disputes is set for August 12, Defendant's counsel will be in trial August 10-12 and has significant deadlines in other class action matters between now and August 12, and the parties believe that they, and the Court, would likely be better served by the parties meeting and conferring about their disputes, narrowing the outstanding disputes for the Court's review, and submitting a status report that reflects a more thorough review of the July 28 production and written responses.
WHEREFORE, the parties STIPULATE AND AGREE to meet and confer with each other on August 4, 2022 at 2 p.m. Pacific and extend the time to file their second status report from August 1 to August 17, 2022.
IT IS SO ORDERED: