United States District Court, D. Nevada
THE HACKETT MILLER COMPANY, INC., a Nevada corporation, Plaintiff,
GFOUR PRODUCTIONS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; and SPOTLIGHT RIGHTS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Defendants.
Gile, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 8807 firstname.lastname@example.org F.
Christopher Austin, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 6559
email@example.com Weide & Miller, Ltd. Attorneys
for Plaintiff The Hackett Miller Company, Inc.
Gile (NV Bar No. 8807) firstname.lastname@example.org F. Christopher
Austin (NV Bar No. 6559) email@example.com WEIDE &
MILLER. LTD. Attorneys for Plaintiff, The Hackett Miller
S. Winter (pro hac vice) gwinter @ssjr.com Jonathan A. Winter
(pro hac vice) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON AND REENS LLC 986
Bedford Street Stamford, CT 06905-5619 Tel: 203-324-6155
Ronald D. Green (NV Bar No. 7360) Alex J. Shepard (NV Bar No.
13582) RANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP, PLL
STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF
TIME FOR PARTIES TO FILE A DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING
ORDER PURSUANT TO THE COURT'S ORDER DATED MARCH 31, 2017
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II United States District Judge
THE HACKETT MILLER COMPANY, INC. (“Plaintiff”),
and Defendants GFOUR PRODUCTIONS, LLC and SPOTLIGHT RIGHTS
LLC (“Defendants”), by and through their
undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree to a fourth
extension of time of 14 days up to and including June 9,
2017, for the parties to file a Joint Discovery Plan and
Scheduling Order with the Court pursuant to the Court's
Minute Order dated March 31, 2017 (ECF No. 29).
March 30, 2017, the Court denied without prejudice
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for (1) Lack of Personal
Jurisdiction, (2) Failure to Join a Necessary Party, and (3)
Improper Venue, and (4) Request to Transfer Venue (ECF No.
22) and ordered the parties to engage in jurisdictional
discovery for a period of 60 days commencing March 31, 2017,
and to submit a joint proposed discovery/scheduling order
within one week from March 31, 2017.
April 7, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation to extend the
time to file a discovery plan for 14 days (ECF No. 30)
because the parties had reached a settlement framework which
would dismiss the action entirely and wanted additional time
to allow the parties to finalize settlement in the form of a
formal written settlement agreement. On April 10, 2017, the
Court granted the stipulation of the parties (ECF No. 31).
Plaintiff's counsel diligently prepared a draft written
settlement agreement for Defendants' review,
Plaintiff's counsel was unable to obtain client approval
on the draft due to vacation travel plans by Plaintiff's
principals until April 17, 2017. Defendants' counsel
provided proposed revisions to the settlement agreement on
April 20, 2017. Because Plaintiff's counsel required
additional time to review and discuss Defendants'
proposed changes prior to the revised deadline to submit a
discovery plan, the parties, on April 21, 2017, filed a
second stipulation to extend the time to file a discovery
plan for another 14 days (ECF No. 32) to May 5, 2017, which
the Court granted on May 2, 2017 (ECF No. 33).
April 24, 2017, the parties' counsel discussed
Defendants' latest revisions to the draft settlement
agreement. While Defendants' revisions raised some
additional issues from Plaintiff's side, counsel for both
parties believed that such issues could be worked out among
the parties and agreed to continue trying to work towards a
mutually acceptable settlement agreement. While
Plaintiff's counsel worked diligently on further
revisions to the settlement agreement that would address
Plaintiff's concerns, Plaintiff's counsel was not
able to get client approval on the revised draft prior to
sending it back to Defendants' counsel because
Plaintiff's primary principal, whom Plaintiff's
counsel had been working with in connection with these
settlement negotiations, became severely ill and was unable
to review and approve the proposed settlement agreement.
Plaintiff's counsel also was scheduled to be outside the
country from May 5th through May 18thon
a two-week vacation that was scheduled back in February (and
about which Defendants' counsel was informed by
Plaintiff's counsel on March 30, 2017). For these
reasons, on May 3, 2017, the parties filed a third
stipulation to extend the time to file a discovery plan for
another 21 days to May 26, 2017, as well as a first
stipulation to extend the time for the parties to conduct
jurisdictional discovery by 30 days to June 30, 2017 (ECF No.
34), which the Court granted on May 8, 2017 (ECF No. 35).
11, 2017, Defendants' counsel wrote back to
Plaintiff's counsel with additional revisions to the
draft settlement agreement. Because Plaintiff's counsel
was traveling overseas at this time, Plaintiff's counsel
was unable to respond to Defendants' counsel comments
about the revised draft agreement until May 17, 2017.
Defendants' counsel prepared a detailed point-by-point
response to each of the issues raised in the correspondence
from Plaintiff's counsel. Defendants' counsel, after
having the chance to discuss with Defendants the points
raised by Plaintiff's counsel, responded to
Plaintiff's counsel with another revised draft on May 22,
2017. While most of the issues to be worked out between the
parties were relatively minor and both sides were optimistic
that a middle ground could be reached, the parties were not
able to agree on the issue of choice of venue despite
Plaintiff's counsel proposing several alternatives as
compromises. Counsel for both parties agreed to try and work
towards having the agreement in final form in all other
respects except for the issue of choice of venue and to
address that issue after all other issues had been
23, 2017, after conferring with Plaintiff, Plaintiff's
counsel emailed Defendants' counsel a revised settlement
agreement making some additional minor changes. On May 25,
2017, Defendants' counsel discussed with Plaintiff's
counsel a proposed compromise on the choice of venue issue.
Stipulation, the parties request that the deadline to file a
joint proposed discovery plan/scheduling order be extended by
14 days to June 9, 2017. This is the fourth request for an
extension of time by both parties to file the joint proposed
discovery/scheduling order. Good cause exists for this
request because while the parties are very close to having a
final draft of a written settlement agreement that is
acceptable to both parties, the parties are still attempting
to reach a mutually acceptable compromise regarding the
choice of venue provision. As of the date of this
Stipulation, both sides have reached a compromise in
principle regarding this remaining issue, but still require
additional time to incorporate language into the agreement
which is acceptable to both sides as well as to finalize and
execute the final written agreement. For these reasons, this
stipulated request is made for good cause and not for
purposes of delay.