Opinion
2:19-cv-00532-APG-DJA
08-31-2022
KATHERINE SEARS AND VIRGINIA SEGANOS, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MID VALLEY ENTERPRISES, LLC and PAHRUMP ICS LLC, doing business as “SHERI'S RANCH”. Defendants.
KEMP JONES, LLP Don Springmeyer, Esq. Jason T. Brown Nicholas Conlon BROWN, LLC Attorneys for Plaintiffs. FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP Mark J. Connot, Esq. Colleen E. McCarty, Esq. Colin D. Dougherty FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP Attorneys for Defendants.
KEMP JONES, LLP Don Springmeyer, Esq. Jason T. Brown Nicholas Conlon BROWN, LLC Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP Mark J. Connot, Esq. Colleen E. McCarty, Esq. Colin D. Dougherty FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP Attorneys for Defendants.
JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND CASE MANAGEMENT DEADLINES (SECOND REQUEST)
Plaintiffs Katherine Sears and Virginia Seganos on behalf of themselves and all persons who have opted in to this action (collectively “Plaintiffs”), and Defendant Mid Valley Enterprises, LLC and Pahrump ICS LLC (collectively “Defendants”), pursuant to LR IA 6-1, hereby stipulate and agree to amend the deadlines for filing their respective dispositive motions from September 5, 2022 to January 10, 2023, with Responses due on February 7, 2023 and Replies due on March 7, 2023, for good cause shown, aver as follows:
1. On May 11, 2022, after the Parties had previously filed two Joint Stipulations to Extend the Discovery Deadlines, the Court issued a Scheduling Order under which fact discovery was to be completed by July 7, 2022, the Parties' respective dispositive motions were due on September 5, 2022, and the Parties' Joint Pre-Trial order was due on October 5, 2022. See ECF No. 102 at 3.
Within their Second Joint Stipulation, the Parties had also asked that the Court extend the applicable case management deadlines, including the deadlines for filing dispositive motions, by 30 days. See ECF No. 101 at 1.
2. The parties have diligently complied by the Court's Scheduling Order by completing all relevant discovery, even though the universe of responsive documents in each of the Parties' possession had proven to be much more extensive than the Parties had originally planned or intended. As an example, Defendants' email server alone has yielded over 500,000 potentially responsive documents, requiring Defendants to expend significant time and resources conducting reviews for responsiveness, confidentiality, and privilege, and Plaintiffs to expend to spend significant time and resources reviewing them thereafter.
3. During the summer of 2022, after extensively reviewing each of the responsive documents, Plaintiff took the depositions of both Jonathan Klempa and Dena Duff (in their capacities as both fact witnesses and corporate representatives pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6)), and Defendants took the depositions of Named Plaintiffs Sears and Seganos, as well as the depositions of two of the Opt-In Plaintiffs.
4. After thoroughly reviewing each of the deposition transcripts, as well as the additional discovery yielded by each of the depositions, the Parties agreed that it would be beneficial to engage in private mediation and began the process of selecting mediators agreeable to both sides. While the Parties have since selected two, mutually-agreeable potential mediators, neither mediator is available until at least early-October 2022. Furthermore, given the volume of discovery and complexity of the legal issues present within this matter, the Parties anticipate that any fulsome mediation will take at least several days.
5. While the Parties hope to settle the matter during mediation, the Parties recognize that mediation may be unsuccessful and that they may therefore be required to prepare respective Motions for Summary Judgment. Given the Parties' fall schedules, the fall and winter holidays, the volume of discovery, and the complexity of issues within the present case, the Parties believe that a January 2023 deadline for filing Motions for Summary Judgment is reasonable.
6. There is good cause to extend the time for filing dispositive motions to January 10, 2023, with respective Responses due on February 7, 2023 and respective Replies due on March 7, 2023, as the extension would enable each side to engage in a fulsome mediation and then adequately prepare their dispositive motions, should the case not settle.
7. This is the Parties' second request to extend the case management deadlines, including those for filing any dispositive motions.
8. This Stipulation is made in good faith and is not intended for purposes of delay.
IT IS SO ORDERED.