Opinion
2:21-CV-01796-RFB-BNW
04-21-2022
LEVELS NETWORK, INC., a Delaware corporation; and AW BETEILIGUNGS GMBH, a limited liability company organized under the laws of Germany, Plaintiffs, v. JONAS FREY, an individual, Defendant
BRIAN W. BOSCHEE, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 07612 JAMES D. BOYLE, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 08384 HOLLEY DRIGGS Kevin Murphy (Pro Hac Vice) Claudio A. Guler (Pro Hac Vice) WUERSCH & GERING LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs Levels Network, Inc. and AW Beteiligungs GmbH
BRIAN W. BOSCHEE, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 07612 JAMES D. BOYLE, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 08384 HOLLEY DRIGGS Kevin Murphy (Pro Hac Vice) Claudio A. Guler (Pro Hac Vice) WUERSCH & GERING LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs Levels Network, Inc. and AW Beteiligungs GmbH
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER DEADLINES
(First Request)
BRENDA WEKSLER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to LR IA 6-1, LR IA 6-2, LR II 7-1, and LR II 26-3, Plaintiffs Levels Network, Inc. and AW Beteiligungs GmbH (together, the “Plaintiffs”), by and through their undersigned counsel, and Defendant Jonas Frey (“Defendant”), by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate, contingent upon this Court's approval, to entry of the following Amended Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. This is the Parties' first request for an extension.
A. The Discovery Completed to Dated:
Plaintiffs filed their Verified Complaint on September 28, 2021 (ECF No. 1). Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint on October 28, 2021 (ECF No. 28). This Court entered an initial Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order on November 18, 2021 (ECF No. 38) (the “Scheduling Order”).
To date, the Plaintiffs have propounded the following discovery:
Date
Plaintiffs' Propounded Discovery
Response Date
12/1/2021
Initial Disclosures Served
12/23/2021
Plaintiffs' Request for Production of Documents
1/23/2022, extended to 2/23/2022
Defendant has not propounded any discovery as of yet.
B. The Discovery that Remains to be Completed:
Plaintiffs wish to conduct additional discovery with respect to the software, including the underlying code, relating to Appointment Trader. Plaintiff is currently reviewing a large amount of documents recently produced by Defendant to ascertain whether additional discovery is warranted.
C. The Reasons Why Discovery Was Not Completed:
Discovery was not completed as the parties have been unable to agree on a procedure for producing the Appointment Trader software, including the source code, and may need court intervention. The software is being run by Phoenix Labs, LLC and Plaintiff has not secured information to ascertain whether this party should be added.
D. A Proposed Schedule for Completing All Remaining Discovery:
By this stipulation, the Parties agree and request a forty-five (45) day extension of the following deadline set forth in the Scheduling Order:
Discovery Event
Current Deadline
Extended Deadline
Amending Pleadings / Adding Parties
April 29, 2022
June 13, 2022
E. Good Cause
Pursuant to LR II 26-3, good cause exists to extend the deadline for adding additional parties and/or amending the pleadings, as discovery was not completed insofar as Plaintiff has not been able to review the sought after software, including the Appointment Trader code. The software is being run by Phoenix Labs, LLC and Plaintiff has not secured information to ascertain whether this party should be added as a party-defendant to the action. The parties have been unable to agree on a procedure for producing the Appointment Trader software and may need court intervention such that Plaintiff can ascertain whether or not Phoenix Labs, LLC should be added as a party-defendant.
IT IS SO AGREED AND STIPULATED:
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED