Opinion
2:16-cv-02941-RFB-NJK
11-16-2022
MUSTAFA YOUSIF and SHARONE WALKER on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LAS VEGAS SAND CORP.; THE VENETIAN CASINO RESORT, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants.
Mary C. Dollarhide (admitted pro hac vice) Taylor Wemmer (admitted pro hac vice) DLA PIPER LLP (US) Brian S. Kaplan (admitted pro hac vice) DLA PIPER LLP (US) Khesraw Karmand (admitted pro hac vice) DLA PIPER LLP (US) Molly M. Rezac Nevada Bar No. 7435 OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant Venetian Casino Resort, LLC THIERMAN BUCK LLP Mark R. Thierman Nevada Bar No. 8285 Joshua D. Buck Nevada Bar No. 12187 Joshua R. Hendrickson Nevada Bar No. 12225 Leah L. Jones Nevada Bar No. 13161
Mary C. Dollarhide (admitted pro hac vice)
Taylor Wemmer (admitted pro hac vice)
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
Brian S. Kaplan (admitted pro hac vice)
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
Khesraw Karmand (admitted pro hac vice)
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
Molly M. Rezac
Nevada Bar No. 7435
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
Attorneys for Defendant Venetian Casino Resort, LLC
THIERMAN BUCK LLP
Mark R. Thierman
Nevada Bar No. 8285
Joshua D. Buck
Nevada Bar No. 12187
Joshua R. Hendrickson
Nevada Bar No. 12225
Leah L. Jones
Nevada Bar No. 13161
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO FILE AN OPPOSITON BRIEF WITH EXCESS PAGES AND FOR THE PARTIES TO FILE REPLY BRIEFS WITH EXCESS PAGES
(FIRST REQUEST)
RICHARD E. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Pursuant to LR IA 6-2 and LR 7-3, Defendant Venetian Casino Resort, LLC (“Defendant) and Mustafa Yousif and Sharone Walker (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), by and through undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and jointly request leave to allow Defendant to file its brief opposing Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 in excess of the twenty-four (24) page limitation by six (6) pages. In addition, the Parties both request leave to file Reply briefs in excess of the twelve (12) page limitation by three (3) pages. This is the Defendant's first request for leave to file opposition briefs in excess of the page limitations, and the Parties' first request for leave to file reply briefs in excess of the page limitations.
On September 30, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their Notice of Motion and Motion for Class Certification Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (ECF No. 228), and Defendant filed its Motion to Decertify Collective Action (ECF No. 229). The Parties must oppose each other's Motion by November 18, 2022. On November 9, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages (ECF No. 231). The Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion on November 14, 2022. (ECF No. 232). Additionally, the Court previously granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages as to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23 (ECF No. 226) to which Defendant is now responding.
The Parties have engaged in voluminous discovery in this case, including, but not limited to a discovery Questionnaire propounded to each of the FLSA Opt-In Plaintiffs, 143 sworn declarations, over 5,800 pages of documents, 2 million lines of KRONOS data, several expert reports, the depositions of the Named Plaintiffs Yousif and Walker, depositions of thirteen (13) Opt-In Plaintiffs, the depositions of two Defendant PMKs, as well as the site visit of the employee areas of Defendant's premises.
The nature of the Plaintiffs' claims and the quantity of evidence that requires analysis by the Parties in opposing each other's motions is good cause for allowing both Plaintiff and Defendant an additional six (6) pages for their Opposition briefs as well as allowing the Parties an additional three (3) pages for their Reply briefs. See Declaration of Leah L. Jones, ECF No. 231-1, attached hereto as Exhibit A; see also Declaration of Mary Dollarhide, attached hereto as Exhibit B. Defendant's Opposition brief will not exceed thirty (30) pages, excluding exhibits, and it shall provide a table of contents and a table of authorities as required by LR 7-3. Similarly, each Parties' Reply brief will not exceed fifteen (15) pages, excluding exhibits, and will also include a table of contents and a table of authorities.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing and for good cause, the Parties stipulate and request the Court grant the Defendant leave to file opposition briefs in excess of twenty-four (24) pages but not more than thirty (30) pages, and Reply briefs in excess of twelve (12) pages but not more than fifteen (15) pages.
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
INDEX OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit A Declaration of Leah L. Jones
Exhibit B Declaration of Mary Dollarhide
EXHIBIT A
Declaration of Leah L. Jones
DECLARATION OF LEAH L. JONES IN SUPPORT OF STIPULATION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITATION FOR THE PARTIES REPLIES IN SUPPORT
I, Leah L. Jones, hereby declare and state as follows:
1. The following declaration is based upon my own personal observation and knowledge, and if called upon to testify to the things contained herein, I could competently so testify.
2. I am an Associate attorney with Thierman Buck, LLP, and I am admitted to practice law in the states of California and Nevada. I am also admitted to the United States District Court District of Nevada, Central District of California, Northern District of California, Eastern District of California, Southern District of California, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
3. I am one of the attorneys of record for Plaintiffs MUSTAFA YOUSIF and SHARONE WALKER, and all others similarly situated (“Plaintiffs”) in this action against THE VENETIAN CASINO RESORT, LLC and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive (“Defendants” or “Venetian”). Mark R. Thierman, Joshua D. Buck, and Joshua R. Hendrickson are also attorneys of record in this case.
4. Given the lengthy history of this case, voluminous discovery completed, and the Parties' mutual agreement that additional pages are necessary to adequately provide the Court with the law and facts to rule on Plaintiffs' FRCP 23 class certification motion, Plaintiffs request an additional 3 pages in excess of the Court's 12-page limit for their reply in support excluding exhibits, and it shall provide a table of contents and a table of authorities as required by LR 7-3.
5. Plaintiffs do not oppose Defendant's request for additional pages as set forth in the Stipulation and Declaration of Mary Dollarhide.
6. I have read the foregoing declaration and declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and the State of Nevada that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on November 14, 2022, in Reno, Nevada.
Leah L. Jones
EXHIBIT B
Declaration of Mary Dollarhide
DECLARATION OF MARY DOLLARHIDE IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN OPPOSITION BRIEF UP TO THIRTY (30) PAGES AND A REPLY BRIEF UP TO FIFTEEN (15) PAGES
I, Mary C. Dollarhide, declare as follows:
1. I am an attorney admitted to practice in this matter and a partner with DLA Piper LLP (US), counsel of record for Defendant Venetian Casino Resort, LLC (“Venetian”). I am one of the attorneys responsible for the defense of this action and, in connection with this declaration, have reviewed the discovery in this case. I make this declaration in support of the Parties' Stipulation and Order to Allow Excess Pages for (1) Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedures 23, and (2) the Parties Reply Briefs (First Request). Except where stated on information and belief, I have personal knowledge of the following and, if called as a witness, I would and could competently testify to all facts in this declaration.
2. The Parties have engaged in voluminous discovery in this case, including, but not limited to a discovery Questionnaire, 143 sworn declarations, over 5,800 pages of documents, 2 million lines of KRONOS data, several expert reports, the depositions of the Named Plaintiffs Yousif and Walker, depositions of thirteen (13) Opt-In Plaintiffs, the depositions of two Defendant PMKs, as well as the site visit of the employee areas of Defendant's premises.
3. Both the Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification Pursuant to Rule of Civil Procedure 23and the Reply In Support of Defendant's Motion to De-Certify require analysis and evaluation of the extensive data in this case. Thus, to adequately address all the issues involved, Defendant respectfully requests an additional six (6) pages for its Opposition brief and an additional three (3) pages for its Reply brief. Defendant will file an Opposition brief of thirty (30) or less pages and will include a table of contents and a table of authorities, and a Reply brief of fifteen (15) or less pages and will include a table of contents and a table of authorities. ... ... ...
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
EXECUTED this 14th day of November, 2022.
Mary C. Dollarhide