Opinion
2:21-cv-00560-JCM-VCF
08-11-2023
MARIA GARNICA, an individual, Plaintiff, v. INDIAN HARBOR INSURANCE COMPANY; DOES I-V, and ROE CORPORATIONS I-V, inclusive, Defendants. INDIAN HARBOR INSURANCE COMPANY, Counterclaimant, v. MARIA GARNICA, Counterdefendant. INDIAN HARBOR INSURANCE COMPANY, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. LOUI DEEDS, an individual, NELLY IRAN, an individual, BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA, a California corporation, Third Party Defendants. LOUI DEEDS, an Individual, Third-Party Defendant's Counterclaim, v. INDIAN HARBOR INSURANCE COMPANY; DOES I-V, and ROE CORPORATIONS I-V, inclusive Counterdefendants.
SHOOK & STONE, CHTD Leonard H. Stone (NV Bar No. 5791) Kurt D. Anderson (NV Bar No. 0093) SHOOK & STONE, CHTD. Attorneys for Third-Party Defendant and Third-Party Counterclaimant Loui Deeds CLYDE & CO U.S. LLP Dylan P. Todd (NV Bar No. 10456) CLYDE & CO LLP Yvonne M. Schulte (admitted pro hac vice) CLYDE & CO U.S. LLP Attorneys for Defendant, Counterclaimant, Third-Party Plaintiff, and Counterdefendant Indian Harbor Insurance Company
SHOOK & STONE, CHTD Leonard H. Stone (NV Bar No. 5791) Kurt D. Anderson (NV Bar No. 0093) SHOOK & STONE, CHTD. Attorneys for Third-Party Defendant and Third-Party Counterclaimant Loui Deeds
CLYDE & CO U.S. LLP Dylan P. Todd (NV Bar No. 10456) CLYDE & CO LLP Yvonne M. Schulte (admitted pro hac vice) CLYDE & CO U.S. LLP Attorneys for Defendant, Counterclaimant, Third-Party Plaintiff, and Counterdefendant Indian Harbor Insurance Company
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO ALLOW THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT AND THIRD-PARTY COUNTERCLAIMANT LOUI DEEDS TO WITHDRAW REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL [ECF 104] AND RE-FILE REPLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7-3(B)
COMES NOW, defendant, counterclaimant, third-party plaintiff, and counterdefendant INDIAN HARBOR INSURANCE COMPANY (“Indian Harbor”), by and through its counsel of record, and counterdefendant and counterclaimant LOUI DEEDS (“Deeds”), by and through her counsel of record, to hereby submit this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order and agree as follows:
On July 28, 2023, Deeds filed her Reply in Support of Motion to Compel. (ECF No. 104). The Reply was in excess of the page limit requirement prescribed by LR 7-3(b). Counsel for the parties met and conferred on August 8, 2023, and agreed to allow Deeds to withdraw the Reply [ECF 104] and re-file a version of the Reply that comports with the page limit requirement of LR 7-3(b). The parties agree that Deeds will have until Friday, August 18, 2023 to file said Reply. Indian Harbor agrees and stipulates that the re-filed pleading should not be considered untimely, and that Indian Harbor will not present any arguments to the Court at the September 6, 2023, hearing regarding the timeliness of Deed's re-filed Reply.
The parties also agree and stipulate that the additional time for Deeds to re-file the Reply is necessary and appropriate as the parties are continuing to meet and confer over certain aspects of discovery addressed in the Motion to Compel [ECF 94], in the hopes that they can narrow the issues that must ultimately be decided by the Court.
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.