United States District Court, D. Nevada
OFFICE OF JAMES J. REAM, ESQ. JAMES J. REAM, ESQ. Attorney
for Plaintiff Rosalind Searcy
MCCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD, WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP GORDON
M. PARK, ESQ. DANIEL I. AQUINO, ESQ. Attorneys for Defendant
Esurance Insurance Company
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DATE FOR FILING JOINT
PRE-TRIAL ORDER (FIFTH REQUEST) 
Esurance Insurance Company (“Defendant” or
“Esurance”), by and through its attorneys of
record, McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth
LLP, and Plaintiff, by and through her counsel of record of
the Law Office of James J. Ream, hereby file this request to
extend the time for the parties to submit the Joint Pre-Trial
Order. The parties hereby stipulate and agree, subject to the
Court's approval, to extend the time for filing the Joint
Pre-Trial Order set forth in the Scheduling Order (Dkt. No.
3), as amended by the January 21, 2016, Stipulation For
Extension of Time (Fourth Request), (Dkt. No. 57). The
parties desire to extend the time for filing the Joint
Pre-Trial Order by twenty-one (21) days.
accordance with the Court's dismissal (Dkt. No. 38) of
Plaintiff's Complaint with leave to file an Amended
Complaint, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on October
16, 2015 (Dkt. No. 43). Defendant filed its Answer to
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint on November 9, 2015. (Dkt.
No. 48). All discovery has been completed. Dispositive
motions recently were completed, as the Court issued an order
granting in part and denying part Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 91) on March 17, 2017.
parties are cooperative in preparing the Joint Pre-Trial
Order, and have on multiple occasions discussed the contents
of the Joint Pre-Trial Order with reference to the
Court's recent order granting in part and denying part
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The parties have
differing views on which facts and claims remain relevant in
the action based on the order on Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment, but are amicably attempting to discern
which facts and exhibits may be admitted in the Joint
Pre-Trial Order. Accordingly, the parties require further
time to analyze these issues and collaborate to narrow down
the relevant contents of the Order.
discovery in this matter has been completed.
DISCOVERY THAT REMAINS TO BE COMPLETED:
REASONS WHY DISCOVERY HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED AND SHOULD BE
is complete, and this request relates solely to the deadline
to submit the Joint Pre-Trial Order. The parties acknowledge
that this request is being made within 21 days of the subject
deadline, and accordingly submit that good cause exists to
extend the deadline. In regards to why the parties require
further time to prepare the Joint Pre-Trial Order, the
parties required a significant amount of time to analyze the
impact and scope of the Court's order on Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment issued on March 17, 2017, as that
order impacted the issues to be tried.
the parties began discussing the contents of the Joint
Pre-Trial Order, it became clear that there were remaining
disputes as to whether certain facts and items of evidence
remained relevant based on the Court's order on the
Motion for Summary Judgment. Given the importance that the
Court's order placed on the order of events (for example,
a finding that claims based upon actions occurring prior to
the filing of the UIM complaint were barred), the parties are
in the process of carefully reviewing the sequence and timing
of facts and evidence in conjunction with the Court's
order to assess what facts remain relevant. In particular,
there are over 3, 000 pages of claims file materials and
related documents disclosed in this matter that must be
reviewed to ascertain which items of evidence and claims
remain relevant given the Court's recent order.
parties are requesting an extension of 21 days in which to
perform this analysis, discuss what issues may be agreed upon
in the Joint Pre-Trial Order, and submit the order to the
PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR PLEADINGS AND COMPLETING ...