United States District Court, D. Nevada
EDWARD S. HALLEY, individually and FLAGSHIP EXPRESS AIRLINES, INC., an Illinois corporation Plaintiff,
DEFENDANTS WILLIAM ACORS and DEFENDANT RBY, INC.'s CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES WILLIAM ACOR, individually; RBY, INC., a Nevada corporation; VISION AIRLINES, INC., Nevada Corporation; and VISION AVIATION HOLDINGS, INC., a Nevada corporation, Defendants.
HULET PLLC, KENNETH E. HOGAN, JEFFREY L. HULET, Attorneys for
MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER; [PROPOSED] AMENDED
Vision Airlines, Inc. (“VAI”), by and through its
attorneys of record, hereby move the Court to extend
deadlines for the disclosure of experts, rebuttal experts,
and discovery cut-off as detailed herein. This the first
request for extension of time to take discovery.
Discovery Completed and Pending
parties timely served their Initial Disclosures.
September 14, 2017, Plaintiffs propounded Interrogatories on
Defendants William Acor, RBY, Inc., Vision Airlines, Inc.,
and Vision Aviation Holdings, Inc., and also, Requests for
Production on the same Defendants.
response, on November 6, 2017, Defendants William Acor, RBY,
Inc., Vision Airlines, Inc., and Vision Aviation Holdings,
Inc. provided their Interrogatory Responses and production of
November 7, 2017, Plaintiffs served their First Supplement to
is preparing and will propound written Interrogatories and
Requests for Production to each Plaintiff on or before
November 30, 2017.
anticipated that Plaintiff will notice and take the
deposition of the 30(b)(6) designee for each of the named
entity Defendants, and that upon Defendants' receipt of
Plaintiffs' responses to Defendants' pending written
discovery, a deposition will be set for Plaintiff Halley and
the 30(b)(6) designee for Flagship Airlines, Inc. Deposition
subpoenas may issue to any expert or rebuttal expert
designated by the parties. Also, it may be necessary to
subpoena documents from Havana Air, operating from Miami,
Basis for Extension
been seeking to retain an expert on Federal Aviation Agency
and Department of Transportation regulations and their
application to the claims and defenses in the action. The
complex aviation regulations strictly mandate what may and
may not be done in the carrying of air passengers by U.S.
airlines or airlines operating in the U.S. VAI asserts that
Plaintiffs' lack of compliance with these regulations is
the cause of the fact pattern within the action, and a
complete defense to Plaintiffs' Complaint. See
e.g. Defendant Vision Airline, Inc.'s and Vision
Aviation Holdings Inc.'s Answer and Counterclaims (Dkt
12), at pp. 9-11, Affirmative Defenses 22, 23, 24, 26, 27,
35, 36, 48, 49, 50, and 51; see also Counterclaims,
at ¶¶ 9, 10, and 11. The testimony is intended to
assist the Court in understanding the complex regulatory
limitations placed upon the parties extraneous to, but
contemplated (and mandatory) within, the contractual
structures alleged and otherwise as understood and applied in
this highly regulated industry.
cause exists for the brief extension requested. VAI has
encountered several false starts in the process of securing
an expert to opine on the governing regulations. Initially,
VAI's principals were overseas, often in remote areas,
for two months (late August through the majority of October)
coordinating new contracts for 2018, and the groundwork that
VAI was able to lay during that absentee period eroded in
late October. Active government employees with the FAA and/or
DOT, knowledgeable of the regulations and known to VAI had
been contacted, and were interested and willing, but upon
their further up-channel investigation were ultimately unable
to obtain the necessary permissions from their agencies to
perform expert services in the action. To counter that
problem, VAI quickly moved into discussions with
former government employees, and had numerous
discussions with a former Department of Transportation
employee, but again upon up-channel investigation, he
similarly was forced to forgo retention upon his new private
employer's objection to his participation in the action.
This start/stop process does not reflect a lack of diligence,
but rather, a limited pool of potential and available
experts. VAI has since recently located an aviation attorney
with 30 years of experience applying the FAA/DOT
regulations. He is willing to assist, has been retained, and
has been provided with relevant documents for review, but
states that he cannot complete a report within the existing
timelines. Further, due to the pending holidays, he states
that he will require another three weeks to complete his
review of documents and provide his report.
parties' counsel discussed the situation and proposed
amendments. Plaintiffs' counsel reported back on November
21, 2017 that Plaintiffs had declined to stipulate.
Proposed Plan ...