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.

Hunt/Penta v. Aon Risk Services South, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

August 24, 2017

HUNT/PENTA, a Joint-Venture of HUNT CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., and PENTA BUILDING GROUP, LLC, Plaintiffs,
v.
AON RISK SERVICES SOUTH, INC., and Does 1-50, inclusive, Defendants. AND RELATED MATTERS. Removed No. A-16-736809-C

          BRISCOE LAW GROUP PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP HUNT CONSTRUCTION, INC. Shemilly Briscoe, Clark Thiel, Michael S. McNamara (Pro Hac Vice), Brandon C. Clark (Pro Hac Vice), Jose Pienknagura (Pro Hac Vice), Counsel for Hunt/PENTA and Insurance Partners, Inc.

          KOLESAR & LEATHAM FOLEY & LARDNER LLP Scott R. Cook, William P. Volk, E. Daniel Kidd Jena L. Levin (Pro Hac Vice) Patrick J. McMahon (Pro Hac Vice) Counsel for Aon Risk Services South, Inc.

          SIPULATION AND ORDER EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES (SECOND REQUEST)

          NANCY J. KOPPE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         IT IS HEREBY STIUPLATED AND AGREED between the parties that some of the discovery dates be continued by adding approximately 30 days to the discovery schedule. The stipulation would change the close of discovery from August 28, 2017 to September 27, 2017. The primary purpose of this extension is to allow an additional 30 days to conduct additional depositions and review recently produced voluminous records.

         I. Legal Authority

         After the court has set a scheduling order, it may be changed upon a showing of good cause. LR 26-4. Good cause is shown for the discovery extension based upon the Parties' discovery progress, including extensive efforts at setting a workable deposition schedule in different states. Id.; see also Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.3d 604, 608-09 (9th Cir. 1992). The good cause inquiry focuses primarily on the movant's diligence. See Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294-95 (9th Cir. 2000). Good cause to extend a discovery deadline exists "if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension." Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. The Court has broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation. Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002).

         II. Proposed Schedule

Activity

Prior Date

Proposed Date

Discovery Cutoff

August 28, 2017

September 27, 2017

Dispositive Motions

September 27, 2017

September 27, 2017

Joint Pre-Trial Order

October 27, 2017

October 27, 2017

         The Parties entered into this Stipulation in an effort to complete discovery. Good cause is shown for the discovery extension based upon the Parties' discovery progress, including extensive efforts at setting a workable deposition schedule in different states to accommodate many conflicting calendars that must be reconciled to get additional deposition testimony. To the extent that this request is untimely, excusable neglect is shown by the Parties' diligence in resolving their discovery issues and disagreements without contested motion practice. No prejudice is done to any party because the Parties agree to this discovery extension. The parties are not delaying the conclusion of this matter by the way of trial or otherwise; rather, the Parties are trying to garner all the necessary information and evidence needed to litigate this matter. No trial date has yet been ordered.

         DENIED as moot.

         IT 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.