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.

Bartech Systems International, Inc. v. Mobile Simple Solutions, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

December 14, 2017

BARTECH SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff,
v.
MOBILE SIMPLE SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation, MOBILE SIMPLE SOLUTIONS (IAS), INC., a Canadian corporation, GEM SA, a Belgian corporation, VINCENT TESSIER, an individual, CHRISTELLE PIGEAT, an individual, Defendants. MOBILE SIMPLE SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation, VINCENT TESSIER, an individual, CHRISTELLE PIGEAT, an individual, GEM SA, a Belgian corporation, Counterclaimants,
v.
BARTECH SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware corporation, Counterdefendant.

          PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER Michael R. Kealy, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 971 Ashley C. Nikkel, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 12838 CONTI FENN & LAWRENCE LLC Gregory T. Lawrence, Esq. (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Kyle S. Kushner, Esq. (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) CONTI FENN & LAWRENCE LLC Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counter-defendant.

          GREENE INFUSO, LLP Michael V. Infuso, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 7388 Keith W. Barlow, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 12689 Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant.

          STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF JOINT PROPOSED PRETRIAL ORDER DEADLINE (SEVENTH REQUEST)

         Pursuant to the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 and Local Rules IA 6-1, 7-1, and 26-4, Plaintiff and Counter-defendant Bartech Systems International, Inc. (“Bartech”) and Defendant and Counterclaimant GEM SA (“GEM”), by and through their attorneys, hereby stipulate and agree that an extension by ninety (90) days to March 13, 2018 of the deadline for submission of the proposed Joint Pretrial Order presently set for December 13, 2017 is necessary for good cause shown. This is the seventh request for an extension of a scheduled deadline.

         STIPULATION

         GEM and Bartech jointly agree that an extension by ninety (90) days to March 13, 2018 of the deadline for submission of the proposed Joint Pretrial Order presently set for December 13, 2017 is necessary for good cause shown. A Motion to extend a deadline set by a Scheduling Order must be supported by a showing of “good cause.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1)(A); see also LR 26-4. This Court's Scheduling Order set the deadline for submission of the proposed Joint Pretrial Order presently scheduled for December 13, 2017. Order (ECF No. 332 at 1). That deadline cannot reasonably be met by the parties due to discovery authorized by this Court that remains to be completed. In addition, the deadline for submission of the proposed Joint Pretrial Order cannot reasonably be met until resolution of the parties' ongoing dispute concerning written discovery.

         Discovery authorized by this Court that remains to be completed includes the depositions of GEM's corporate designee and expert. See Order (ECF No. 426) (granting Bartech's request for a deposition of GEM's expert); Min. of Proc. (ECF No. 423) (noting this Court's oral Order compelling GEM's corporate designee deposition in Las Vegas, Nevada).

         Moreover, this Court issued an Order providing a schedule for the submission to this Court of the parties' dispute concerning written discovery. See Order (ECF No. 415 at 2-3). The parties must meet and confer by December 29, 2017. Id. at 2. The parties must then file a joint statement regarding each discovery request for which a dispute exists after the meet and confer. Id. Therefore, the parties' ongoing dispute concerning written discovery will not be resolved before the December 13, 2017 deadline for the submission of the proposed Joint Pretrial Order.

         The foregoing discovery authorized by the Court must be taken and the foregoing discovery dispute must be resolved before the parties are positioned to file the proposed Joint Pretrial Order. That is because the proposed Joint Pretrial Order requires the parties to, among other things, identify exhibits and specific portions of deposition transcripts to be offered at trial. See LR 16-3(b)(8), (10). The parties are unable to delineate exhibit lists until the universe of potential exhibits is defined by resolution of the parties' written discovery dispute. Likewise, the parties are unable to designate specific portions of deposition transcripts to be offered at trial where certain depositions remain to be taken.

         CONCLUSION

         For the foregoing reasons, GEM and Bartech jointly agree that an extension by ninety (90) days to March 13, 2018of the deadline for submission of the proposed Joint Pretrial Order presently scheduled for December 13, 2017 is necessary for good cause shown.

         For good cause shown, the joint pretrial order deadline 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.