Opinion
2:17-cv-02393-MMD-VCF
10-28-2022
ROBERT “SONNY” WOOD, an individual; ACCESS MEDICAL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiffs, v. NAUTILUS INSURANCE GROUP, a Delaware limited liability company, et al., Defendant. NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY, Cross-Claimant, v. ROBERT "SONNY" WOOD; ACCESS MEDICAL, LLC; FLOURNOY MANAGEMENT, LLC AND ROES 1-10, inclusive, Counter-Defendants.
CASEY J. QUINN NEVADA BAR NO. 11248 SELMAN BREITMAN LLP 3993 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 200 Las Vegas, NV 89169-0961 LINDA WENDELL HSU (Pro Hac Vice) CALIFORNIA BAR NO. 162971 SAMUEL E. LIPSITZ (Pro Hac Vice) CALIFORNIA BAR NO. 331407 SELMAN BREITMAN LLP Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Claimant NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY THE SCHNITZER LAW FIRM JORDAN P. SCHNITZER NEVADA BAR NO. 10744 9205 W. Russell Road, Suite 240 Las Vegas, NV 89148 Attorneys for Defendants ACCESS MEDICAL, LLC and ROBERT CLARK WOOD, II
CASEY J. QUINN
NEVADA BAR NO. 11248
SELMAN BREITMAN LLP 3993 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 200 Las Vegas, NV 89169-0961
LINDA WENDELL HSU (Pro Hac Vice)
CALIFORNIA BAR NO. 162971
SAMUEL E. LIPSITZ (Pro Hac Vice)
CALIFORNIA BAR NO. 331407 SELMAN BREITMAN LLP
Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Claimant NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY
THE SCHNITZER LAW FIRM
JORDAN P. SCHNITZER NEVADA BAR NO. 10744 9205
W. Russell Road, Suite 240 Las Vegas, NV 89148
Attorneys for Defendants ACCESS MEDICAL, LLC and ROBERT CLARK WOOD, II
ORDER
EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY TO RESPOND TO ROBERT “SONNY” WOOD'S AND ACCESS MEDICAL, LLC'S MOTION FOR RULE 37 SANCTIONS
Cam Ferenbach Magistrate Judge
Defendant / Cross-Claimant NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY (“Nautilus”), by and through its counsel of record, Selman Breitman LLP, and Plaintiffs / Counter-Defendants ROBERT “SONNY” WOOD and ACCESS MEDICAL, LLC (the “Insureds”; collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their counsel of record, The Schnitzer Law Firm, hereby submit the following Stipulation and [Proposed] Order extending the deadline for Nautilus to file its Response to the Insureds' Motion for Rule 37 Sanctions [ECF No. 331] (the “Motion”).
The underlying motion to compel related to the Motion pertains to documents that Nautilus originally withheld based on a claim of attorney-client privilege (the “Documents”). Prior to the filing of the Motion, Nautilus had been contemplating whether to file a writ of mandamus with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as it relates to the Court's order (1) finding that the Documents are not subject to a claim of attorney-client privilege, and (2) instructing Nautilus to produce the Documents to the Insureds. However, Nautilus recently determined that it would not be proceeding with a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, Nautilus produced the Documents to the Insureds via email on October 24, 2022. Hard copies of the Documents were also sent to the Insureds via regular mail on the same day.
Given that Nautilus has complied with the Court's order to produce the Documents, Nautilus's counsel contacted the Insureds' counsel and requested that the Insureds withdraw the Motion. Counsel for the Insureds responded that he has not had sufficient time to analyze the Documents and consider Nautilus's withdrawal request. However, the Insureds' counsel agreed to extend the deadline by one (1) week for Nautilus to respond to the Motion while counsel reviews the Documents and considers Nautilus's request.
Accordingly, the Parties have agreed that the original deadline of October 31, 2022, for Nautilus to respond to the Motion will now be extended to November 7, 2022.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED: