Opinion
2:22-cv-01338-RFB-VCF
10-24-2022
Shawn Walker, Plaintiff, v. Equifax Information Services, LLC et al., Defendants.
Michael Kind, Esq. Nevada Bar No.: 13903 KIND LAW Attorney for Plaintiff Shawn Walker Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP Brody Wight, Esq. Stephen Lozier, Esq. Counsel for CoreLogic Credco, LLC and Ally Financial Inc. Schlichter & Shonack, LLP Jamie Keeton, Esq. Counsel for CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc. Anderson, McPharlin & Conners LLP Brian Bradford, Esq. Carleton R. Burch, Esq. Counsel for 1st United Credit Union McDonald Carano LLP Jeff Silvestri, Esq. Karyna Armstrong, Esq. Counsel for Capital One, N.A. (erroneously sued as Capital One Services, LLC) Quilling Selander Lownds Winslett & Moser, P.C. Rachael Swernofsky, Esq. James Acosta, Esq. Counsel for Trans Union LLC
Michael Kind, Esq.
Nevada Bar No.: 13903
KIND LAW
Attorney for Plaintiff Shawn Walker
Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP
Brody Wight, Esq.
Stephen Lozier, Esq.
Counsel for CoreLogic Credco, LLC and Ally Financial Inc.
Schlichter & Shonack, LLP
Jamie Keeton, Esq.
Counsel for CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc.
Anderson, McPharlin & Conners LLP
Brian Bradford, Esq.
Carleton R. Burch, Esq.
Counsel for 1st United Credit Union
McDonald Carano LLP
Jeff Silvestri, Esq.
Karyna Armstrong, Esq.
Counsel for Capital One, N.A. (erroneously sued as Capital One Services, LLC)
Quilling Selander Lownds Winslett & Moser, P.C.
Rachael Swernofsky, Esq.
James Acosta, Esq.
Counsel for Trans Union LLC
STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO FILE THE PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER
(FIRST REQUEST)
Shawn Walker (“Plaintiff”) and CoreLogic Credco, LLC, CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc., 1st United Credit Union, Capital One, N.A. (erroneously sued as Capital One Services, LLC), Ally Financial, Inc., and Trans Union, LLC (“Defendants”) (jointly as the “parties”), by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate to extend Local Rule 26-1's deadlines for the parties to hold their initial Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) conference and to file their proposed discovery plan and scheduling order (the “Deadlines”).
Good cause exists to extend the Deadlines. The Parties need additional time for counsel to coordinate to set the discovery conference. The nature of Plaintiff's claims (involving allegations of identity theft) and the amount of defendants named in this action require additional time to develop a suitable discovery plan. Additionally, the Parties are engaged in active settlement discussions that may alleviate the need to submit a proposed discovery plan. Therefore, it is appropriate to extend the deadlines for the Parties to file their proposed discovery plan and scheduling order to allow time for the Parties to meet and confer in compliance with Local Rule 26-1(b).
Parties therefore request to extend the Deadlines by 30 days, making the new deadline for the submission of a stipulated discovery plan and scheduling order on November 24, 2022. This is the first request for an extension of this deadline.
SCHEDULING ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Scheduling Order is modified to extend the discovery deadlines as stated above.
IT IS SO ORDERED: