Reeves v. Discover Your Mobility, Inc. ( 2024 )

Nevada Bar No. 7434 2 ADAM ELLIS, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 14514 3 MAINOR ELLIS, LLP 4 8367 W. Flamingo Road, Suite 200 Las Vegas, Nevada 89147 5 Phone: (702) 450-5000 Fax: (702) 733-1106 6 adam@me-injury.com Attorneys for Plaintiff 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 ELLEN REEVES, individually, CASE NO: 2:22-CV-01361-GMN-DJA 11 STIPULATION Plaintiff, JOINT MOTION TO REOPEN 12 vs. DISCOVERY 13 DISCOVER YOUR MOBILITY, INC., a (THIRD REQUEST FOR EXTENSION) foreign corporation; SOLO WORLD 14 PARTNERS, LLC., a foreign corporation; 15 DOE EMPLOYEES I-V, individually; DOE MANAGERS I-V, individually; ROE 16 MANUFACTURERS I-X; ROE INSPECTION COMPANIES I-V; ROE 17 DISTRIBUTORS I-X; DOE INDIVIDUALS I-X; and ROE BUSINESS ENTITIES I-X, 18 inclusive, 19 Defendants. 20 Plaintiff ELLEN REEVES, by and through her counsel of record ADAM ELLIS, ESQ.; 21 DISCOVERY YOUR MOBILITY, INC., by and through its counsel of record ADAM KNECHT, 22 ESQ., and SOLO WORLD PARTNERS, LLC, by and through its counsel of record JOHN 23 KRIEGER, ESQ., jointly move to reopen the discovery period for one-hundred twenty (120) 24 days. 25 26 27 28 2 I, Adam Ellis, declare as follows: 3 1. I am a partner at MAINOR ELLIS, LLP, attorneys of record for Plaintiff ELLEN 4 REEVES. I am competent to and will testify to the following facts if called to do so. 5 2. I make this Declaration in support of the parties’ JOINT MOTION TO REOPEN 6 DISCOVERY. 7 3. On January 23, 2024, the Court entered an Order [25] permitting Plaintiff to file an 8 Amended Complaint, adding Defendant SOLO WORLD PARTNERS, LLC (“Solo World”) as a 9 party. 10 4. Plaintiff’s counsel effectuated service on Solo World on February 14, 2024. On 11 March 8, 2024 the Court approved the parties’ Joint Stipulation and Order for Extension of Time 12 for Defendant Solo World, LLC to Respond to Complaint [33]. 13 5. Defendant Solo World, LLC filed its Answer to First Amended Complaint [35] on 14 March 22, 2024. 15 6. At that time, discovery was set to close the next day, on March 23, 2024, with 16 dispositive motions due April 22, 2024. 17 7. After Solo World appeared, Plaintiff and Defendant Discover Your Mobility, Inc. 18 began having preliminary settlement discussions, which were complicated by certain issues in the 19 case including lack of insurance coverage. 20 8. The parties held a 26(f) conference on May 7, 2024, discussing the discovery 21 remaining to be completed by all parties, including newly added Solo World. 22 9. The parties agreed additional discovery was necessary due to Solo World’s recent 23 appearance in the case, and that they believed all could be accomplished in one-hundred twenty 24 days. The parties also discussed the possibility of resolution, and agreed it would be best explored 25 after Solo World had conducted some discovery. 26 10. Good cause exists to reopen discovery to allow Solo World to conduct discovery, 27 as it became a party close to the conclusion of the original discovery period. Additionally, good 28 2 Mobility, Inc. seek to complete. 3 11. Excusable neglect exists for the failure to move to reopen discovery prior to 21 4 days before the discovery deadline because Solo World did not become a party until the day 5 before the original discovery period had passed. Additionally, excusable neglect exists for the 6 delay between Solo World’s appearance and this Motion because Plaintiff and Defendant 7 Discovery Your Mobility, Inc. had been exploring the potential for reaching global resolution, 8 which would have eliminated the need to conduct any further discovery. 9 12. Accordingly, the parties respectfully request the Court enter an Order Reopening 10 Discovery for a period of one-hundred twenty (120) days and continuing all other deadlines 11 accordingly. 12 13. The parties are also submitting a Discovery Plan and Proposed Scheduling Order 13 in compliance with FRCP 26(f), as Defendant Solo World recently appeared. The parties’ 14 proposed discovery schedule is the same in both documents. 15 14. I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 16 Dated: May 31, 2024 Signed: /s/ Adam Ellis 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 I. INTRODUCTION 3 The parties seek to reopen discovery for one-hundred twenty (120) days. Defendant Solo 4 World Partners, LLC appeared in the case the day before discovery closed, and thus could not 5 complete any discovery. This extension will afford Defendant Solo World ample time to conduct 6 discovery. In addition, reopening discovery will allow the parties additional time to discuss the 7 possibility of resolution before heading to trial. 8 II. ARGUMENT 9 A. Applicable Legal Standards 10 A request to reopen discovery must be supported by a showing of good cause 11 and excusable neglect. Local Rule 26-3; Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). The good cause analysis turns 12 on whether the subject deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the exercise of 13 diligence. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The 14 showing of diligence is measured by the movant's conduct throughout the entire period of time 15 already allowed. CC.Mexicano.US, LLC v. Aero II Aviation, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169110, 16 at *11-12, 2015 WL 10059063 (D. Nev. Dec. 15, 2015). 17 The excusable neglect “determination is at bottom an equitable one, taking account of all 18 relevant circumstances surrounding the party's omission.” Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick 19 Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993). “Neglect” encompasses “both simple, faultless 20 omissions to act and, more commonly, omissions caused by carelessness.” Id. at 388. “[T]he 21 determination of whether neglect is excusable is an equitable one that depends on at least four 22 factors: (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its 23 potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant 24 acted in good faith.” Bateman v. U.S. Postal Service, 231 F.3d 1220, 1223-24 (9th Cir. 2000) 25 (citing Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 388; and Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 381-82 26 (9th Cir. 1997)). 27 28 2 Plaintiff moved to amend her Complaint and add Defendant Solo World Partners, LLC as 3 a party at the deadline to add parties and amend pleadings. Once her Motion was granted, she 4 began service of process. Once service was effectuated, Defendant Solo World appeared. 5 However, since pre-existing deadlines continued running while before Solo World made its 6 appearance, only one day of discovery remained when Solo World first appeared in the case. 7 Thus, it did not have any time to complete discovery. Good cause exists to reopen the discovery 8 deadlines to allow Solo World the opportunity to conduct discovery. 9 Good cause also exists to allow the parties sufficient time to conduct additional discovery. 10 Defendant Discover Your Mobility, Inc., had noticed Plaintiff’s deposition for the last day of 11 discovery, March 22, 2024. Due to calendaring error by Plaintiff’s counsel, Plaintiff did not 12 appear for her deposition. Accordingly, good cause exists to reopen discovery to allow the parties 13 to complete Plaintiff’s deposition. 14 C. Excusable Neglect Exists for Not Submitting this Motion within 21 Days of the 15 Close of Discovery 16 Shortly after Solo World made its appearance, Defendant Discover Your Mobility 17 contacted Plaintiff’s counsel to discuss whether it was feasible to resolve the case. Given the 18 unique circumstances of the case, Plaintiff and Defendant Discover Your Mobility focused on 19 whether a global resolution could be reached. While counsel explored options with their clients, 20 the other case-related deadlines passed. In early May 2024, the parties held a 26(f) conference for 21 the purpose of determining the discovery Solo World would need, as well as whether the addition 22 of Solo World in settlement discussions would be productive. The parties agreed that in order to 23 have meaningful settlement discussions, Solo World would first need to conduct some discovery. 24 This Joint Motion followed. 25 The Pioneer factors support a finding of excusable neglect due to filing this Motion after 26 the close of discovery. The first factor, the danger of prejudice to any party, weighs in favor of 27 finding excusable neglect. The parties jointly agree discovery should be reopened, thus there is no 28 2 short considering this would just be the third extension of discovery, and the extension is 3 narrowly tailored to allow a newly added party sufficient time to prepare a defense. The third 4 Pioneer factor—the reason for delay—supports a finding of excusable neglect as the parties had 5 hoped to resolve the case globally and obviate the need for any extension. The fourth factor, 6 whether the movant acted in good faith, is likewise present. The parties jointly move to reopen the 7 discovery deadlines, and each agree they have done so in a good faith attempt to permit a newly- 8 added party to conduct discovery. 9 D. An Extension of Discovery is Warranted 10 1. The Discovery Completed to Date 11 a. Plaintiff’s Initial Rule 26 Disclosures on October 6, 2022; 12 b. Defendant DYM’s Initial Rule 26 Disclosures on November 4, 2022; 13 c. Plaintiff’s First Requests for Production to Defendant DYM on December 16, 14 2022, and Defendant DYM’s Responses on March 8, 2023; 15 d. Plaintiff’s Second Requests for Production to Defendant DYM on March 3, 16 2023, and Defendant DYM’s Responses on April 10, 2023; 17 e. Plaintiff’s Interrogatories to Defendant on April 11, 2023, and Defendant 18 DYM’s Responses on April 19, 2023; 19 f. Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions to Defendant DYM on April 11, 2023, and 20 Defendant DYM’s Responses on May 10, 2023; 21 g. Plaintiff’s Third Requests for Production to Defendant DYM on October 25, 22 2023, and Defendant DYM’s Responses; 23 h. Plaintiff took the deposition of Defendant DYM’s FRCP 30(b)(6) witness 24 Michael Woods. 25 i. Plaintiff’s disclosure of expert witnesses. 26 j. Defendant noticed Plaintiff’s deposition for the last day of discovery, however 27 it did not go forward. 28 2 Since Defendant Solo World is new to the case, it will produce its FRCP 26 disclosures, 3 written discovery to Plaintiff and Defendant DYM, subpoenas as needed, depositions as needed, 4 and disclosure of experts. 5 Defendant DYM will complete the deposition of Plaintiff, which was originally scheduled 6 for the last day of discovery yet did not go forward, and may propound written discovery on Solo 7 World. 8 Plaintiff anticipates propounding written discovery on Defendant Solo World, and taking 9 the deposition of its FRCP 30(b)(6) witness as well as pertinent fact witnesses and expert 10 witnesses, who are yet to be identified. 11 3. The Reasons Remaining Discovery Remains to be Completed 12 Defendant Solo World has yet to conduct any discovery, nor have the other parties 13 conducted discovery into Defendant Solo World, because it appeared in the case the day before 14 the discovery deadline expired. This is due to the deadlines continuing to run while Plaintiff’s 15 Motion to Amend was pending, as well as while service of process was pending. 16 Defendant DYM was unable to take the deposition of Plaintiff as noticed due to Plaintiff’s 17 counsel’s calendaring error, which caused the need for the deposition to be rescheduled. Since it 18 was originally set for the date the discovery deadline expired, absent an extension, it would 19 necessarily have to have been taken outside of the discovery period. 20 4. The Parties’ Proposed Discovery Schedule 21 The parties propose the following discovery schedule: 22 Event Current Deadline Proposed New Deadline 23 Add Parties/Amend Pleadings Passed Passed 24 Initial Expert Disclosures Passed 7/19/24 for Defendant Solo World 25 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures Passed 8/19/2024 26 Close of Discovery Passed 9/17/2024 27 28 2 || Joint Pretrial Order 5/22/2024 11/18/24 3 4 Wl. CONCLUSION 5 For the foregoing reasons, the parties respectfully request the Court reopen discovery fo 6 || one-hundred twenty (120) days, and continue the remaining case deadlines accordingly. 7 Respectfully submitted by: 8 || MAINOR ELLIS, LLP HALL & EVANS, LLC ? | 4/Adam Ellis /s/ Adam Knecht 19 || BRADLEY S. MAINOR, ESQ. ADAM R. KNECHT, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 7434 1160 North Town Center Drive, Suite 330 +. 11 || ADAMELLIS, ESQ. Las Vegas, NV 89144 Nevada Bar No. 14514 Attorneys for Def. Discover Your Mobility, Inc. 12 || 8367 W. Flamingo Road, Suite 200 13 Las Vegas, Nevada 89147 88 Phone: (702) 450-5000 14 || Fax: (702) 733-1106 adam @ me-injury.com = 15 || Attorneys for Plaintiff 16 + DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC /s/ John Krieger zs 18 || Nevada Bar No. 6023 SE 19 3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 800 Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 20 || Telephone: 702-550-4400 Facsimile: 844-670-6009 21 || Email: jkrieger@dickinson-wright.com Attorneys for Def. Solo World Partners, LLC 23 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties’ stipulation to reopen discovery (ECF No. 37) is GRANTED. 24 25 IO q /) 26 eS TM DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 27 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 DATED: June 3, 2024 Page 8 of 8