Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Western National Insurance Group v. Hanlon

United States District Court, D. Nevada

December 26, 2017


          OLSON, CANNON, GORMLEY, ANGULO & STOBERSKI Peter M. Angulo, Esq. Attorneys for Western National Insurance Group

          Dylan P. Todd, Daniel I. Aquino, McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth LLP Attorneys for Carrie M. Hanlon, Esq. and Morris, Sullivan, Lemkul & Pitegoff


         Defendants CARRIE M. HANLON, ESQ. and MORRIS, SULLIVAN, LEMKUL & PITEGOFF, by and through their attorneys of record of the law firm McCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD, WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP, and Plaintiff WESTERN NATIONAL INSURANCE GROUP, by and through attorneys of record of the law firm OLSON, CANNON, GORMLEY, ANGULO, & STOBERSKI, hereby file this Stipulation and Order to Extend All Discovery Deadlines (Second Request) for 90 days.


         In July 2017, the parties served their FRCP 26(A) Initial Disclosures. The initial disclosures contained numerous documents with voluminous page counts. Due to the amount of relevant documents generated by the underlying case, Plaintiffs initial production alone totaled approximately 2, 967 pages.

         Plaintiff has propounded Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admissions on all Defendants. Responses were originally due on September 8, 2017. Due to the volume of the requests (there were nearly 75 Requests for Admission propounded on each Defendant) and an ongoing issue as to the amount of privileged material, more time was needed to adequately respond. Responses to this discovery were provided on October 10, 2017.

         Defendants propounded written discovery in the form of Interrogatories, Requests for Production and Requests for Admission to Plaintiffs on October 11, 2017. This written discovery was propounded following receipt and review of the extensive initial document disclosures by Plaintiff. Plaintiffs counsel's previously discussed medical procedures and family commitments required him to be unavailable and out of the office for all of November, 2017. Defendants granted additional time to respond to the written discovery, and received the written responses on December 8, 2017. Plaintiff also served its First Supplemental FRCP 26 Disclosure on December 5, 2017.

         Defendants served subpoenas and custodian of records deposition notices for the law firms of Phillips, Spallas & Angstadt (PSA) and the Law Offices of Cory Hilton. PSA law firm did not respond to the subpoena, and a notice of non-appearance of the custodian of records was taken on September 13, 2017. Defendants did receive documents per the subpoena later that day. There are still some lingering issues regarding certain objections to the subpoena. It is possible that this matter may need to come before the Court in a motion to compel, however in the interest of economy, Defendants have agreed to hold off on this particular matter until documents from Cory Hilton have been produced.

         Defendants have granted Cory Hilton several extensions to provide his firm's correspondence file relating to the Herbster v. Classic Landscapes litigation in the Eighth Judicial District Court. However, it has become apparent that despite continued concessions from Defendants, Cory Hilton will not cooperate in producing his correspondence file. Defendants scheduled another Custodian of Records Deposition for Mr. Hilton's law firm on December 13, 2017. On December 12, 2017, Defendants spoke with Breen Arntz of the Law Offices of Cory Hilton, who stated that he would be the one to coordinate the document production. An agreement was reached to vacate the December 13, 2017 deposition in order to allow Mr. Arntz to handle the production. Pursuant to the agreement, Mr. Arntz was to have produced the correspondence file (including all email discussions and text messages between Mr. Arntz and the PSA Law Firm) by December 20, 2017.

         The aforementioned documents were not produced by this date. Instead, the Law Offices of Cory Hilton produced an invoice of more than $3, 000 for the copying of their file. This matter has become unresolvable between the parties on their own. As such, Defendants will be filing a motion with the Court to obtain an order compelling the correspondence file of the Law Offices of Cory Hilton. This correspondence file relates specifically to facts surrounding key issues of the case, as well as Defendants' affirmative defenses.


         All depositions remain to be conducted, including the identification of all applicable Rule 30(b)(6) and representative witnesses. The parties agreed that depositions would be more efficient if taken following the review and analysis of the parties extensive production of documents and discovery responses. Defendants also believe that the correspondence file of the Cory Hilton law firm is also necessary in order to have productive depositions of Plaintiff s representatives.

         The parties have identified approximately six to nine party representatives that will need to deposed, in addition to outside witnesses from the underlying litigation. This includes Tammy Herbster's treating physicians and representatives of Classic Landscapes. The parties anticipate a total of fifteen (15) witnesses for deposition.

         Expert discovery will also need to be completed. In particular, some or all of Plaintiff s representatives do not reside in Nevada, thus coordinating schedules for insurance adjusters and claims managers who have a significant caseload in various ...

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.