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.

Bemo USA Corp. v. Jake's Crane, Rigging & Transport International, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

November 28, 2017

BEMO USA CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiff,
v.
JAKE'S CRANE, RIGGING & TRANSPORT INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendant.

          MARQUIS AURBACH COFFING Albert G. Marquis, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 1919 Chad F. Clement, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 12192 James Beckstrom, Esq. Nevada Bar No.14032 10001 Park Run Drive Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 Attorneys for Defendants

          Chad F. Clement, Esq.

          MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL [ECF NO. 90] (SECOND REQUEST)

          Peggy A. Leen, United States Magistrate Judge.

         Jake's Jake's Crane, Rigging & Transport International, Inc., as well as the other entities (collectively, “Jake's”) by and through its counsel of record Albert G. Marquis, Esq., Chad F. Clement, Esq., and James Beckstrom, Esq., of the law firm of Marquis Aurbach Coffing, hereby submits its Motion to Extend Time to File its Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel from its current due date, that being Monday, November 13, 2017, for fourteen (14) calendar days; which would make the due date November 28, 2017. This Motion is made and based upon the papers and pleadings on file herein and the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities. This motion is filed on November 13, 2017. See LR 6-1.

         MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Jake's hereby moves this Court for a two week extension of time to file an Opposition to Bemo USA Coporation's Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena Duces Tecum to Rich Wightman & Company. This Motion is supported by good cause as indicated by the Declaration of Chad Clement, Esq., attached hereto, and made without the intent to delay, hinder, or frustrate proceedings.

         II. FACTS RELEVANT TO THIS REQUEST

         The instant Motion follows diligent efforts by the counsel for Jake's to timely resolve the underlying objections to the subpoena duces tecum to Rich Wightman & Company (“Wightman”) without judicial intervention. Counsel has diligently worked with opposing counsel Phillip Varricchio, Esq. and Rachel J. Holzer, Esq., in an attempt to avoid having to file the instant Motion to no avail.

         The Subpoena Duces Tecum was issued to Wightman, a non-party accountant for Jake's, seeking production of records on February 1, 2017. Within that Subpoena, Plaintiff sought production of nearly twenty-five years of documents relating to six non-party entities, containing no proximal limitation. Additionally, the Subpoena sought information that contained privileged accountant-client information, as to the same six non-party entities. The subpoena requested Wightman produce:

“[A]ny and all documentation of financial records (including but not limited to tax returns, bank statements, income statements, general deposits, balance sheets, patents, patent license agreements, patent assignments) which name, benefit and/or identify the following entities: (1) Jake's Crane Rigging and Transport International; (2) Construction Management Co.; (3) Ganesh, LLC; (4) Ganesh II, LLC; (5) Robb Technologies, LLC; (6) Transworld Manufacturing Company; and (7) Lift Equipment Certification Company, Inc.”

See Exhibit 1, attached to ECF DKT. No. 90.

         On February 10, 2017, counsel for Wightman, Frank Ellis, Esq. served a written objection pursuant to FRCP 45(2)(B). Additionally, Jake's served a written objection on March 6, 2017. Following the written objections by both Jake's and Wightman, Plaintiff had limited contact with Jake's or Wightman for almost eight months. Based on the understanding the parties were working towards an amicable solution to narrow the scope and proximity of the requests, counsel for both Jake's and Wightman waited for Bemo to provide further information as to how they would agree to narrow the requests at issue.

         On October 18, 2017, Bemo, after months of no communication with Jake's or Wightman, filed the underlying Motion to Compel. As set forth in the Declaration of Chad Clement, Esq., since the filing of Bemo's Motion to Compel, Jake's has made numerous good faith efforts to contact his clients. Additionally, Jake's counsel has reached out to Bemo in an attempt to narrow the scope of information requested and produce the requested information without judicial intervention. However, based on counsel's current trial schedule and Mr. Ellis being out of the jurisdiction from November 6, 2017 through November 10, 2017, counsel has been unable to meaningfully discuss the underlying requests. During this time, Counsel for Jake's has been working diligently to discuss the requests with Jake's, but due to ...


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.