Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Thompson v. Allstate Insurance Co.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

March 13, 2017

BRENDA THOMPSON, Plaintiff,
v.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

          PYATT SILVESTRI JAMES P.C. SILVESTRI, ESQ. Attorney for Defendant, ALLSTATE FIRE and CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

          EGLET PRINCE Dennis M. Prince DENNIS M. PRINCE, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiff

          MATTHEW L. SHARP, LTD. Matthew L. Sharp MATTHEW L. SHARP, ESQ. Attorney for Plaintiff

          STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY (THIRD REQUEST)

         Pursuant to L.R. IA 6-1, the parties, through their respective undersigned counsel, jointly submit this Stipulation to Extend Time to Complete Discovery. This is the second request made by the parties.

         1. Status of Discovery to Dated:

         Plaintiff made her initial disclosures as required by FRCP 26(a)(1) on March 14, 2017 and made a supplemental disclosure on May 16, 2017. Defendant made its initial disclosures as required by FRCP 26(a)(1) on March 16, 2017 and made a supplemental disclosure on March 27, 2017. On March 29, 2017, Defendants served their first sets of Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admissions on Plaintiff. On April 20, 2017, Plaintiff served her first set of Requests for Production of Documents on Defendant.

         Defendant responded to that set on May 22, 2017. Plaintiff responded to Defendant's first set of discovery on July 5, 2017 and July 12, 2017. Defendant propounded its 2nd Set of Requests for Production of Documents on July 10, 2017 to which Plaintiff responded on September 13, 2017. In the interim, Defendant supplemented its disclosures on August 1, 2017 and Plaintiff propounded her 2nd Set of Requests for Production on August 10, 2017. Defendant responded to those requests on October 2, 2017.

         On March 5, 2018, Defendant has produced additional documents in response to the requests for production subject to agreed-upon terms of a stipulated protective order regarding confidentiality of the documents.

         On March 5, 2018, Defendant has also produced a privilege log in response to certain productions made pursuant to FRCP 26 and to Plaintiffs requests for production.

         Additionally, Defendant has taken the deposition of Plaintiff Brenda Thompson.

         Additionally, Defendant has served subpoenas duces tecum upon various medical providers as well as the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the Las Vegas Fire & Rescue. In particular, Defendant has served medical provider Dr. Marjorie Belsky and Integrated Pain Specialists with both a subpoena duces tecum and a deposition notice for the FRCP 30(b)(6) witness for the medical practice related to Dr. Belsky and Integrated Pain Specialists. Importantly, there is an independent Federal Court action entitled Allstate Insurance Company et al. v. Marjorie Belsky, MD et al., 2:15-cv-2265-MMD-CWH. As a result of this other action, counsel in the present action have had to coordinate with Dr. Belsky's personal counsel in order to obtain records and to set her deposition. The records have now been obtained. Counsel are working on setting Dr. Belsky's deposition, in both her personal capacity as well as the FRCP Rule 30(b)(6) witness for her medical practice.

         Additionally, Plaintiff has noticed FRCP Rule 30(b)(6) depositions for Defendant Allstate as well as four (4) individual depositions. There have been discovery issues raised with respect to these depositions going forward. Counsel for the parties have conducted no less than three telephone calls in attempt to resolve these issues. It is agreed that the FRCP Rule 30(b)(6) depositions on the first two categories can move forward. Allstate has agreed to bring these witnesses to Las Vegas and scheduling is underway.

         However, the parties are still conferring on the third category which specifically addresses Allstate's investigation regarding issues of the other Federal Court Action, Allstate Insurance Company et al v. Marjorie Belsky, MD, et al. In that case, Allstate alleges amongst other things, that Dr. Belsky committed insurance fraud in treating the Plaintiffs. There are significant issues which have not been resolved, focusing primarily upon issues of attorney client privilege. The Parties herein seek a dispute resolution conference with the Court to address this particular discovery issue.

         Additionally, Defendant is attempting to obtain potential additional discovery materials from the other Federal Court action, Allstate Insurance Company et al. v. Marjorie Belsky, MD, et al. Notably, counsel for Defendant Allstate in this matter is ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.