Diamond Resorts International, Inc. v. Reed Hein & Associates, LLC ( 2021 )

JOSEPH P. GARIN, ESQ. 2 Nevada Bar No. 6653 MEGAN H. HUMMEL, ESQ. 3 Nevada Bar No. 12404 9900 Covington Cross Drive, Suite 120 4 Las Vegas, Nevada 89144 (702) 382-1500 - Telephone 5 (702) 382-1512 - Facsimile jgarin@lipsonneilson.com 6 mhummel@lipsonneilson.com 7 Attorneys for Defendant Schroeter Goldmark & Bender, P.S. 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 11 DIAMOND RESORTS U.S. COLLECTION CASE NO.: 2:17-cv-03007-APG-VCF 12 DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, 13 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO Plaintiff, EXTEND DISCOVERY 14 vs. (Fifth Request) 15 REED HEIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC d/b/a/ TIMESHARE EXIT TEAM, a Washington 16 limited liability company; BRANDON REED, an individual and citizen of the State of 17 Washington; TREVOR HEIN, an individual and citizen of Canada; THOMAS 18 PARENTEAU, an individual and citizen of the State of Washington; HAPPY HOUR MEDIA 19 GROUP, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; MITCHELL R. SUSSMAN & 20 ASSOCIATES, an individual and citizen of the State of California; SCHROETER, 21 GOLDMARK & BENDER, P.S., a Washington professional services 22 corporation; and KEN B. PRIVETT, ESQ., a citizen of the State of Oklahoma, 23 Defendants. 24 25 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY (Fifth Request) 26 Pursuant to Local Rules 6-1 and 7-1, Plaintiff Diamond Resorts US Collection 27 Development, LLC (“Diamond” or “Plaintiff”), and Defendants Reed Hein & Associates, 28 LLC d/b/a Timeshare Exit Team (“TET”), Brandon Reed (“Reed”), Trevor Hein (“Hein”), 2 Reed Sussman, Esq. d/b/a The Law Offices of Mitchell Reed Sussman & Associates 3 (“Sussman”), and Schroeter Goldmark & Bender, P.S. (“SGB”) (at times collectively the 4 “Defendants”), by and through their respective attorneys of record, hereby agree and 5 stipulate, in accordance with LR 26-4, as follows: 6 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the Parties that the deadline to 7 complete discovery be extended as set forth herein. This is the Parties’ fifth request to 8 extend the discovery deadline in this matter. 9 A. Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order 10 On November 18, 2020, the Court entered an Order [ECF No. 350] granting the 11 parties’ Joint Stipulation to Extend Discovery (Fourth Request) which set the following 12 dates: 13 1. Initial Experts: July 14, 2021 14 2. Rebuttal Experts: September 13, 2021 15 3. Discovery Cut-Off: November 3, 2021 16 4. Dispositive Motions: December 30, 2021 17 5. Submission of Pretrial Order: January 18, 2022 18 B. Discovery Completed/Remaining Discovery 19 Pursuant to the requirements of LR6-1 and LR26-4, the parties provide the Court 20 with the following information in support of their stipulation to extend discovery in this 21 matter. 22 1. Discovery Completed 23 a) Each of the Parties has served the required Rule 26(a) Initial Disclosures. 24 Plaintiff has served nine supplements; TET has served 33 supplements, HHMG has 25 served six supplements; SGB has served ten supplements; and Sussman has served 26 seven supplements. 27 /// 28 /// 2 for Production of Documents and three sets of Interrogatories on TET, Reed, Hein, and 3 Parenteau. TET, Reed, Hein, and Parenteau responded to all Interrogatories and 4 Requests for Production of Documents. TET, Reed, Hein, and Parenteau have served 5 Plaintiff with an aggregate of five (5) sets of Requests for Production of Documents, 6 three (3) sets of Requests for Admission, and one set of Interrogatories. Plaintiff 7 responded to this written discovery and has no responses outstanding at this time. 8 c) Plaintiff has served two sets of Requests for Production of Documents on 9 HHMG and two sets of Interrogatories. HHMG responded to this written discovery and 10 has no responses outstanding at this time. HHMG has also propounded one set of 11 Requests for Admissions on Plaintiff and one set of Requests for Production of 12 Documents. Plaintiff responded to this written discovery and has no responses 13 outstanding at this time. 14 d) Plaintiff has served two sets of Interrogatories on SGB and four sets of 15 Requests for Production of Documents. SGB responded to this written discovery and 16 has no responses pending at this time. SGB also served Plaintiff with four sets of 17 Requests for Production of Documents, one set of Interrogatories, and one set of 18 Requests for Admission. Plaintiff responded to this written discovery and has no 19 responses outstanding at this time. 20 e) Plaintiff has served Sussman with one set of Interrogatories and two sets 21 of Requests for Production of Documents. Sussman responded to this written discovery 22 and has no response outstanding. Sussman served Plaintiff with two sets of 23 Interrogatories and two sets of Requests for Production of Documents. Plaintiff 24 responded to this written discovery. 25 f) The Parties have served numerous third-party document production 26 subpoenas, including subpoenas to Better Business Bureau, Yelp, Inc., The Lampo 27 Group, LLC, Lampo Licensing, LLC, Timeshare Closing Services, Inc., Ardent Law 28 Group, PLLC, Silva & Massi, and the American Resort Development Association. 2 h) The Parties have begun taking the Rule 31 depositions of 330 non-party 3 timeshare owners (the “Identified Owners”). To date, approximately 140 of the Rule 31 4 depositions have been completed, with several more scheduled throughout the coming 5 weeks. 6 i) Several Parties have disputed the sufficiency of written discovery 7 responses and are in the process of meeting and conferring to resolve disputes prior to 8 court intervention. 9 j) Plaintiff filed motions to compel the production of the defendants’ 10 documents and the Parties awaiting resolution on Plaintiff’s Objections to Magistrate’s 11 Judge’s Orders thereon (ECF No. 342 and clarificatory orders, ECF No. 353 and ECF 12 No. 355). 13 k) Plaintiff has deposed TET’s 30(b)(6) witnesses for the limited purpose of 14 addressing issues which arose during the Rule 31 depositions. 15 l) SGB has served notice to take by videotape the deposition of the Rule 16 30(b)(6) corporate designee of Plaintiff. A Motion for Protective Order thereon has been 17 filed by Plaintiff relative to this deposition and is currently set for May 17, 2021. 18 m) Plaintiff and SGB have agreed that SGB’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition will be 19 scheduled in late August 2021. A deposition notice is forthcoming. 20 n) SGB has served deposition subpoenas on three additional witnesses for 21 Plaintiff: Maria Kalber, Eva Esteban, and David LaGassa. Plaintiff accepted service of 22 these subpoenas and depositions are currently set for June 22, 2021, June 29, 2021, 23 and June 30, 2021. 24 As outlined above, the Parties have exchanged (and are continuing to exchange) 25 hundreds of thousands of documents encompassing millions of pages related to the 26 timeshare owner contracts and relationships at issue in this case, and are awaiting 27 resolutions on pending discovery motions. 28 /// 2 a) Completion of the Rule 31 depositions of the Identified Owners. 3 b) Depositions of all Parties’ 30(b)(6) corporate witnesses and other, relevant 4 non-party witnesses (including the Identified Owners who were not deposed pursuant to 5 Rule 31). The Parties have attempted to schedule these depositions on numerous 6 occasions, but encountered numerous delays due to various restrictions and concerns 7 imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Parties are working together to coordinate 8 the scheduling of all remaining depositions. Five depositions are currently scheduled to 9 move forward beginning June 22, 2021. The Parties are contemplating video- 10 depositions to expedite scheduling, but given the magnitude of the exhibits and the 11 number of defendants involved, all Parties prefer to conduct in-person depositions if 12 feasible. 13 c) Initial and rebuttal expert disclosures. 14 d) Supplemental document disclosures. The Parties are currently in dispute 15 over the production of several categories of documents. The production of these 16 documents is largely contingent on the adjudication of pending or forthcoming motions 17 to compel. 18 The Parties reserve the right to participate in any other discovery allowed by the 19 federal or local rules. 20 C. Reason Why Discovery Has Not Been Completed. 21 Although the parties have worked cooperatively and diligently to complete 22 discovery, discovery has been delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which has led 23 to various closures and travel restrictions. As this Court is aware, this case also involves 24 voluminous and complex document discovery, both as between the Parties and as to 25 third parties. Plaintiff and TET have collectively disclosed well over 1,000,000 pages of 26 documents. TET has also recently disclosed over 500,000 audio recordings with a 27 collective recording time of over four (4) years. Defendants SGB and Sussman have 28 also disclosed a significant amount of documents. The sheer volume of documents and 2 collection, processing, and production of information, has taken and continues to take a 3 substantial period of time. 4 Complicating the production have been the Parties’ ongoing disputes over 5 various discovery responses and document productions. These disputes have led to 6 dozens of meet and confers, as well as several rounds of motions to compel, which led 7 to the Court’s Order of November 4, 2020 (ECF 342) and clarificatory orders thereon 8 (ECF 353 and ECF 355). Currently, the parties are awaiting the Court’s ruling on 9 Plaintiff’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Order (ECF 342, ECF 353 and ECF 355), 10 to guide them in further discovery efforts. 11 The parties are also awaiting the Court’s ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective 12 Order Regarding SGB’s FRCP 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice to Plaintiff. 13 The Parties also do not anticipate that document production, Rule 31 14 depositions, party depositions, the 50 agreed upon live, non-party depositions (25 per 15 side), or expert reports can be completed within the current time frame. 16 The Parties therefore respectfully request to extend the discovery deadline by 17 approximately 90 days from the current discovery deadlines. 18 The Parties have entered into the agreement in good faith and not for purposes 19 of delay. This extension is not intended to delay the progress of this case but will 20 instead allow the Parties to complete discovery and/or to further explore the possibility 21 of settlement upon completion of discovery. 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2 Event Current Deadline Extended Number of Days Deadline 3 Initial Experts July 14, 2021 October 12, 2021 90 Days 4 Rebuttal September 13, 2021 December 13, 2021 91 Days (90 days Experts will land on a 5 Sunday) Discovery November 3, 2021 February 1, 2022 90 Days 6 Cut-Off 7 Dispositive December 20, 2021 March 21, 2022 91 Days (90 days Motions will land on a 8 Sunday) Pretrial Order January 18, 2022 April 18, 2022 90 Days 9 10 In accordance with Paragraph 13 of the existing Scheduling Order and LR 26-4, 11 this Stipulation is submitted more than twenty-one (21) days before any of the deadlines 12 that the Parties seek to extend through this stipulation. 13 Dated this 14th day of May, 2021. Dated this 14th day of May, 2021. 14 GREENSPOON MARDER LLP THE LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL REED SUSSMAN & ASSOCIATES 15 /s/ Phillip A. Silvestri /s/ Mitchell Reed Sussman 16 ________________________________ ________________________________ Phillip A. Silvestri, Esq. (NV Bar No. 11276) Mitchell Reed Sussman, Esq. 17 3993 Howard Hughes Pkwy., Ste. 400 (Pro Hac Vice) Las Vegas, NV 89169 California Bar No. 75107 18 Leslie Benjamin, Esq. Richard W. Epstein, Esq. (Pro Hac Vice) 19 (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 1053 S. Palm Canyon Drive Jeffrey Backman, Esq. Palm Springs, California 92264 20 (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Michelle E. Durieux, Esq. 21 (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Dated this 17th day of May, 2021. 200 East Broward Blvd., Ste. 1800 22 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 ALDRICH LAW FIRM, LTD. 23 and /s/ John P. Aldrich 24 COOPER LEVENSON, P.A. ________________________________ Kimberly Maxson-Rushton, Esq. John P. Aldrich, Esq. (Bar No. 6877) 25 NV Bar No. 5065 7866 West Sahara Avenue Gregory A. Kraemer, Esq. Las Vegas, Nevada 89117 26 NV Bar No. 1091 1835 Village Center Circle Attorneys for Defendant 27 Las Vegas, NV 89134 Mitchell Reed Sussman, Esq. dba The Law Offices of Mitchell Reed Sussman 28 Attorneys for Plaintiffs & Associates 1 || Dated this 14" day of May, 2021. Dated this 14" day of May, 2021. 2 || GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LIPSON NEILSON P.C. LLP 3 /s/ Dione C. Wrenn /s/ Megan H. Thongkham 4 5 Robert S. Larsen, Esq. (NV Bar No. 7785) Joseph P. Garin, Esq. (NV Bar No. 6653) David T. Gluth Il, Esq. (NV Bar No. 10596) Megan H. Thongkham, Esq (NV Bar N 6 Dione C. Wrenn, Esq. (NV Bar No. 13285) 12404 300 South 4" Street, Suite 1550 9900 Covington Cross Drive, Suite 120 7 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Las Vegas, Nevada 89144 Attorneys for Defendants Attorneys for Defendant 8 | Reed Hein & associates, LLC dba Schroeter Goldmark & Bender, P.S. Timeshare Exit Team, Brandon Reed, 9 | Trevor Hein, Thomas Parenteau, and 40 Happy Hour Media Group 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. £44 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 g a . 517-2021 as 15 DATED: ee eZ 24g 16 g48 17 a 4g 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page 8 of 8