Minden v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.

Full title: MICHAEL MINDEN & THERESA MINDEN, Plaintiffs, v. ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND…

Court: United States District Court, District of Nevada

Date published: Oct 24, 2022

2:21-cv-00151-APG-BNW (D. Nev. Oct. 24, 2022)

Opinion

2:21-cv-00151-APG-BNW

10-24-2022

MICHAEL MINDEN & THERESA MINDEN, Plaintiffs, v. ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation; DOE INDIVIDUALS 1-10 and ROE ENTITIES I-X, Defendants.

REID RUBINSTEIN & BOGATZ, Michael S. Kelley, Esq. I. Scott Bogatz, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs

BRENDA WEKSLER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

REID RUBINSTEIN & BOGATZ, Michael S. Kelley, Esq. I. Scott Bogatz, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT

BRENDA WEKSLER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to the United States District Court District of Nevada Local Rule 7-3(b) Plaintiffs, MICHAEL MINDEN and THERESA MINDEN (collectively the “Mindens” or “Plaintiffs”) are limited to 24 pages in their response to ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY's (“Allstate” or “Defendant”) Amended Motion for Spoliation of Evidence and Sanctions (ECF No. 58) (the “Motion”).

Plaintiffs hereby respectfully move this Court for leave and respectfully requests this Court grant leave to exceed the applicable page limit by 6 pages. Good cause exists to exceed the page limit set forth in Nevada Local Rule 7.3(b) because Allstate's Motion seeks case dispositive sanctions in the form of dismissal against Plaintiffs for destroying evidence. In its Motion, Allstate argues that “[b]ecause of Plaintiffs' actions, Defendant Allstate has been prevented from inspecting and testing the roof tiles and underlayment from the Plaintiffs' roof.” Motion at 2:1-3. It is imperative that Plaintiffs be able to fully respond and be heard in opposition to the serious allegations leveled by Allstate that Plaintiffs destroyed evidence in bad faith, including recounting the factual record showing each time Allstate or its contractors or engineers inspected the subject roof and also deposition testimony regarding the various inspections of the subject roof. Fourteen and the 30-page Response brief is devoted to the factual background. Good cause also exists to exceed the page limit set forth in Nevada Local Rule 7.3(b). The Declaration of Michael S. Kelley, Esq. in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limit (“Vlasic Declaration”), is filed herewith.

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED