Opinion
2:23-cv-00291-APG-DJA
07-26-2023
LUCIA COVARRUBIAS, an Individual, MARIA DE JESUS RODRIGUEZ, an Individual, ESTATE OF OSCAR ALFREDO AYALA, Individually and as Assignees of PABLO C. TORRESESPARZA Plaintiff, v. KEY INSURANCE COMPANY, and DOES I - V, and ROE CORPORATIONS I - V, inclusive, Defendants.
JAMES P. C. SILVESTRI, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 3603 ALI R. IQBAL, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 15056 PYATT SILVESTRI Attorneys for Defendant, KEY INSURANCE COMPANY LAW OFFICES OF DAVID SAMPSON DAVID F. SAMPSON, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 6811 Attorney for Plaintiffs
JAMES P. C. SILVESTRI, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 3603
ALI R. IQBAL, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 15056
PYATT SILVESTRI
Attorneys for Defendant, KEY INSURANCE COMPANY
LAW OFFICES OF DAVID SAMPSON
DAVID F. SAMPSON, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 6811
Attorney for Plaintiffs
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY (FIRST REQUEST)
DANIEL J. ALBREGTS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between Plaintiffs LUCIA COVARRUBIAS, MARIA DE JESUS RODRIGUEZ, and the ESTATE OF OSCAR ALFREDO AYALA and their counsel of record, David F. Sampson, Esq., of the Law Offices of David Sampson, and Defendant KEY INSURANCE COMPANY, through its counsel of record James P.C. Silvestri, Esq., and Ali R. Iqbal, Esq., of the law firm Pyatt Silvestri, that the discovery deadlines shall be extended 120 days, pursuant to L.R. 26-3. This is the first request made by the parties. The parties set forth the following information in support of their stipulation.
a) Statement Specifying the Discovery Completed.
Plaintiffs made their initial disclosures as required by FRCP 26(a)(1) on April 25, 2023, and made a supplemental disclosure on June 21, 2023. Defendant made its initial disclosures as required by FRCP 26(a)(1) on April 5, 2023, made a supplemental disclosure on May 25, 2023, and made a second supplemental disclosure on June 20, 2023. On April 25, 2023, Plaintiffs served their first sets of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents on Defendant. On May 25, 2023, Defendant responded to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. On June 22, 2023, Defendant served supplemental responses to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production of Documents and supplemental Answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories. On July 14, 2023, Defendant served their first sets of Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admissions to Plaintiffs. Defendant has requested the availability of Plaintiffs for depositions.
b) Discovery That Remains to Be Completed.
The extension is necessary so the parties can conduct the discovery after receiving documents and responses to the discovery requests. The parties further need to conduct the discovery in order to provide complete expert reports, which include depositions of Plaintiffs, and Key Insurance Company representatives, and other witnesses as discovery continues. Additionally, a Motion for Protective Order based on a Meet and Confer held between the parties on July 6, 2023, was filed on July 21, 2023 (Docket #17), regarding documents to be produced by Defendant, which is pending in this Court.
c) Reasons Discovery Was Not Completed Within the Time Limits and Needs to Be Extended
The parties are making a request to extend the deadline to amend pleadings and add parties, the initial expert deadlines, and the rebuttal expert deadline, all of which have closed. Pursuant to FRCP 6(b)(1)(B) and LR IA 6-1(a) there is excusable neglect to allow the extension of these deadlines. The Court previously denied the party's request, without prejudice, because no excusable neglect was identified. Below is an analysis of excusable neglect that exists within this matter.
There are at least four factors in determining whether neglect is excusable: (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith. Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd., 507 U.S. 380, 395, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993). The determination of whether neglect is excusable is ultimately an equitable one, taking account of all relevant circumstances surrounding the party's omission. Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 395. This equitable determination is left to the discretion of the district court. Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853, 860 (9th Cir.2004). Erection Co. v. Archer W. Contrs., LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159029, *7.
First, there is no danger to either party in the extension of these deadlines because both undersigned counsels have stipulated to allow all deadlines to be extended by 120 days. Second, the length of the delay is minimal as the deadlines sought to be extended recently expired. The parties are jointly seeking an extension of 120 days in order to conduct additional discovery which is required by both parties. This includes the review of discovery responses, depositions by both sides as to pertinent witnesses including experts, as well as additional documents to be produced by Defendant in response to Plaintiffs' discovery. These documents would be relevant to any retained expert by the respective parties. Therefore, this gives the parties additional time to resolve these issues, pursuant to Defendant's Motion for Protective Order (Docket #17) filed on July 21, 2023. The parties have also held multiple Meet and Confers as to discovery responses and have been working together amicably to resolve these issues without court intervention.
Third, the reason for the delay is due to the pending disclosure of documents regarding Defendant's policies and procedures in handling bodily injury claims. The parties respectfully disagree as to how these documents should be produced in light of the request for confidentiality by Defendant. Plaintiff served Requests for Production of Documents and Interrogatories to Defendant on April 25, 2023. Defendant then responded to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents on May 25, 2023. On that same day Plaintiffs requested a Meet and Confer with respect to both sets of responses. The parties held a Meet and Confer on June 6, 2023, in which the parties discussed these issues. Following that Meet and Confer, on June 22, 2023, Defendant provided a draft stipulation for protective order and confidentiality for Plaintiffs. Defendant then provided supplemental responses to discovery on June 25, 2023. On June 29, 2023, Plaintiffs stated they could not agree to a protective order and confidentiality. The parties then held another Meet and Confer on July 6, 2023, but ultimately could not agree after a meaningful discussion on the matter. Defendant did not have authority disclose these documents unless and until a Protective Order was in place. A Motion regarding those issues was filed on July 21, 2023.
Defendant's policies and procedures are necessary in this matter for further discovery for both parties, as this case centers on allegations by Plaintiffs of Bad Faith against Defendant. Since there has been no agreement as to how these policies and procedures should be produced, Defendant could not move forward with retaining an expert. This issue could be resolved with a Protective Order, which would require that any respective expert keep these documents confidential in their review, without that determination in this case experts could not be retained which in turn caused the delay of disclosing any such expert, from Defendant's perspective. In turn, from Plaintiff's perspective there are experts that would not be willing to be retained if a Protective Order was in place. Therefore, neither party was able to disclose an expert.
Finally, given the parties have gone back and forth on certain discovery responses and certain documents to be produced, the parties have acted in good faith, they have not attempted to delay discovery in this matter and are moving forward with depositions in order to further discovery. Therefore, because of the factors identified above, excusable neglect is present in order to extend the deadlines as proposed below, including ones that have closed, e.g., deadline to Amend pleadings and add parties, the initial and rebuttal expert deadlines.
d) Proposed Schedule for Completing All Remaining Discovery
In order to allow time for the parties to resolve and complete additional necessary discovery before they exchange expert reports, the parties which to extend existing deadlines by 120 days as follows:
| Current Date | Proposed Date | |
| Amend Pleadings and Add Parties | May 23, 2023 (closed) | September 22, 2023 |
| Initial Expert Disclosures | June 24, 2023 (closed) | |
| Rebuttal Expert Disclosures | July 24, 2023 (closed) | November 21, 2023 |
| Close of Discovery | August 23, 2023 | December 21, 2023 |
| Dispositive Motions | September 22, 2023 | |
| Joint Pretrial Order | October 22, 2023 | February 19, 2024 |
The actual date falls on a Sunday, October 22, 2023.
The actual date falls on a Saturday, January 20, 2024.
Based on the foregoing, the parties respectfully request this Court grant their Stipulation an Order to Extend Discovery Deadlines (First Request).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.