El Al Israel Airlines, Ltd. v. Swissport USA, Inc. ( 2021 )

1 MARK J. CONNOT (10010) REX D. GARNER (9401) 2 FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP 1980 Festival Plaza Drive, #700 3 Las Vegas, Nevada 8915 (702)262-6899 tel 4 (702)597-5503 fax mconnot@foxrothschild.com 5 rgarner@foxrothschild.com Attorneys for Plaintiff EL AL Israel Airlines, Ltd. 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 EL AL ISRAEL AIRLINES, LTD, Case No.: 2:21-cv-00517-GMN-VCF 11 Plaintiff, v. STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 12 EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES SWISSPORT USA, INC.; DOES I through X, 13 inclusive; and ROE BUSINESS ENTITIES I (SECOND REQUEST) through X, inclusive, 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 Pursuant to Local Rule IA 26-3, Plaintiff EL AL Israel Airlines, Ltd. (“Plaintiff” or “EL 18 AL”) and Defendant SWISSPORT USA, INC. (“Swissport”) stipulate to extend the deadlines in 19 the order dated August 6, 2021 (ECF No. 19). As provided herein, good cause supports this 20 request. 21 I. The completed discovery. 22 A. Discovery completed by Plaintiff 23 1. Written Discovery and Disclosures 24 Date Description Response 25 6.17.2021 Plaintiff El Al Israel Airlines, Ltd.’s Initial N/A 26 Disclosures Pursuant to FRCP 26 27 1 Date Description Response 2 9.3.2021 Plaintiff El Al Israel Airlines, Ltd.’s First N/A 3 Supplemental Initial Disclosures Pursuant to FRCP 26 4 9.27.2021 Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Responses due 5 10.27.2021 6 9.27.2021 Plaintiff’s First Set of Document Requests to Responses due Defendant 10.27.2021 7 8 10.5.2021 Plaintiff El Al Israel Airlines, Ltd.’s Second N/A Supplemental Initial Disclosures Pursuant to FRCP 9 26 10 B. Discovery completed by Defendants 11 1. Written Discovery and Disclosures 12 Date Description Response 13 6.17.2021 Defendant Swissport USA, Inc.’s Initial Disclosures N/A 14 Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1) 15 7.21.2021 Swissport USA, Inc.’s Interrogatories to El Al Israel Responses done 16 Airlines, Ltd. 9.3.2021 17 7.21.2021 Swissport USA, Inc.’s Requests for Production to El Responses done Al Israel Airlines, Ltd. [Set One] 9.3.2021 18 10.19.2021 Defendant Swissport USA, Inc.’s First Supplemental N/A 19 Disclosures Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1) 20 21 2. Subpoenas 22 Date Description Recipient 23 7.20.2021 Subpoena to Produce Documents U.S. Airline Services, LLC 24 7.20.2021 Subpoena to Produce Documents Clark County 25 Department of Aviation 26 7.20.2021 Subpoena to Produce Documents Nevada Airline Services, 27 LLC 1 For each of the subpoenas, Swissport requested the non-parties respond by August 2, 2021. 2 Swissport received documents in response to the subpoena to Clark County Department of 3 Aviation and produced them on October 19, 2021. Swissport expected to receive documents from 4 US Airline Services on October 15, 2021 but has not yet received them. Swissport is also awaiting 5 word from Nevada Airline Services to determine if it is an affiliate/subsidiary of US Airline 6 Services such that a single response/production to the subpoena will suffice. 7 3. Depositions 8 The parties anticipate noticing depositions shortly after completion of written discovery 9 and document productions. 10 II. Discovery that remains to be completed. 11 Plaintiff is supplementing its responses to Swissport’s written discovery with newly 12 available evidence from internal and outside sources. Plaintiff also awaits responses by the end of 13 October (barring any courtesy extensions) to the written discovery it sent to Swissport. Swissport 14 also awaits responses to the subpoenas served upon U.S. Airline Services, LLC and Nevada Airline 15 Services, LLC. The parties will review those responses/documents to determine if additional 16 written discovery and/or subpoenas need to be served. 17 The parties anticipate noticing the depositions of certain witnesses listed in each other’s 18 disclosures, including percipient witnesses to the incident, investigators of the incident, and Rule 19 30(b)(6) representatives. 20 Expert and rebuttal expert disclosures/depositions also remain. 21 III. The reasons why the remaining discovery was not completed within the time limits 22 imposed by the discovery plan 23 Based on pre-answer requests from the Court and responses thereto, the parties did not file 24 their discovery plan with the Court until the presumptive 180-day period had nearly expired. The 25 parties have been working diligently to fully respond to discovery requests that have been served 26 on one another, and have granted professional courtesies on brief extensions to same. 27 1 The targets of Swissport’s subpoenas have been slow to respond, and brief 2 accommodations have been extended as professional courtesies. Both parties, including many 3 employees, offices, representatives, and their counsel continue to work remotely based on the 4 pandemic, which causes delay in the time needed to gather necessary documents and information 5 for disclosures and for responses to discovery requests. Delays associated with document 6 discovery from the parties and non-parties have delayed the commencement of depositions and the 7 preparation of expert reports. 8 Local Rule 26-3 governs modifications or extensions of the scheduling order. Pursuant to 9 LR 26-3, any motion or stipulation to extend discovery must be received by the Court “no later 10 than twenty-one (21) days before the expiration of the subject deadline.” LR 26-3 further states 11 that “a request made within 21 days of the subject deadline must be supported by a showing of 12 good cause.” 13 The parties recognize that they are requesting an extension of certain deadlines within 21 14 days of the expiration of the November 3, 2021, deadline to disclose expert witnesses and reports. 15 As such, the parties submit that, based on the above delays beyond their control, good cause exists 16 to permit granting the instant requested extension. In evaluating “good cause” this Court has held 17 “[t]he ‘good cause’ standard in Local Rule 26-3 is the same as the standard governing modification 18 of the scheduling order under Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b).” Tanya Victor v. Walmart, Inc., No. 2:20-cv- 19 0101591, 2021 WL 3745190, at *2 (D. Nev. Apr. 8, 2021). Good cause to extend the discovery 20 deadlines is found where “it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking 21 the extension.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). In the 22 present matter, as noted, the parties’ efforts have been hampered by non-parties’ failure to comply 23 with subpoenas and provide responsive documents despite service of subpoenas in early August. 24 Responsive documents should have been disclosed by the non-parties in early September but, as 25 stated herein, the parties are still waiting for responses from U.S. Airline Services, LLC and 26 Nevada Airline Services, LLC. 27 1 Here, the extension request is made in good faith as certain discovery deadlines could not 2 be met due to the actions of non-parties, the request is advanced jointly by the parties, and not for 3 the purposes of delay. Trial in this matter has not yet been set. Moreover, since this request is a 4 joint request, neither party will be prejudiced. 5 This request for an extension of deadlines is not sought for any improper purpose or other 6 purpose of delay. Rather, it is sought by the parties solely for the purpose of allowing sufficient 7 time to conduct discovery, disclose expert witnesses, and adequately prepare their respective cases 8 for trial. 9 The parties respectfully submit that the reasons set forth above constitute compelling 10 reasons for the extension and that the failure to act was the product of excusable neglect. 11 IV. The proposed schedule for completing all remaining discovery. 12 Event Current Deadline Proposed Deadline 13 Amending and Adding October 4, 2021 N/A 14 Parties 15 Initial Expert Disclosures November 3, 2021 February 1, 2022 16 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures December 3, 2021 March 3, 2022 17 Close of Discovery January 2, 2022 April 2, 2022 18 Dispositive Motions February 2, 2022 May 2, 2022 19 Pretrial Order (including March 3, 2022, or 30 days June 2, 2022 20 FRCP 26(a)(3) disclosures) after the resolution of the final dispositive motion or 21 further order by the court 22 [ATTORNEY SIGNATURE BLOCK AND ORDER ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 23 24 25 26 27 DATED this 22nd day of October, 2021 DATED this 22nd day of October, 2021 || FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP WILEY PETERSEN /s/ Rex D. Garner /s/ Jason M. Wiley 4|| MARK J. CONNOT, ESQ. JASON M. WILEY, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 10010 Nevada Bar No. 9274 REX D. GARNER, ESQ. ROBERT J. CALDWELL, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 9401 Nevada Bar No. 7637 1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 700 1050 Indigo Drive, Suite 200-B Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 mconnot@foxrothschild.com jwiley@wileypetersenlaw.com rgammer@foxrothschild.com rcaldwell@wileypetersenlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff El Al Israel Attorneys for Defendant Swissport USA, Inc. 9|| Airlines, Ltd. 10 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED: 13 DATED: toe 14 ms gn □□ □□□ 16 0 ITED STATES MAGISTRATE:-JUDGE 17 18 Dated this 22nd day of October, 2021 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page 6 of 6