United States District Court, D. Nevada
CHARLES BOLDING; DONNA EHLERT; WAYNE HARRIS; and TONI VARAY, Plaintiffs,
NAV-LVH CASINO, LLC dba WESTGATE LAS VEGAS RESORT & CASINO, a Nevada, Limited Liability Company; WESTGATE LAS VEGAS RESORT, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; WESTGATE RESORTS, INC., a Florida Corporation, Defendants.
Offices of Michael P. Balaban, Michael P. Balaban, Esq.,
Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
PHILLIP A. SILVESTRI, GREENSPOON MARDER, P.A., RICHARD W.
EPSTEIN MYRNA L. MAYSONET, GREENSPOON MARDER, P.A., Attorneys
[PROPOSED] STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR
to Local Civil Rule 6-1(a), Defendant NAV-LVH, LLC dba
Westgate Las Vegas Resort & Casino (“NAV-LVH”
or Defendant) and Plaintiffs CHARLES BOLDING, DONNA EHLERT,
WAYNE HARRIS, and TONI VARAY (“Ms. Varay”)
(collectively the “Plaintiffs”), by and through
their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate as
Procedural Posture and Facts
or about October 18, 2017, this Court granted the
parties' fourth request for an extension of the discovery
deadline based, in part, on the pending Motion to Substitute
Party dealing with a representative for Plaintiff Tony Very
who died in 2016.
Plaintiff's Motion to Substitute Party was denied without
prejudice on November 30, 2017. It is Defendant's
position that this matter has been concluded as any other
Motion would be untimely. Plaintiff disagrees and is
exploring options. The discovery that has been propounded
regarding Ms. Varay is still outstanding and based on the
Court's Order there is no one at this time authorized to
act on her behalf.
Currently, the discovery deadline is February 5, 2017. This
request is timely as it has been filed more than 21 days from
the discovery deadline as required by the Rules. This request
is not the result of undue delay. Neither of the parties will
be harmed by an extension and both represent that such
request is needed in the interest of justice.
required by Rule 26-4 of the Local Rules of Practice for the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada
(“Local Rules”), this fifth request for an
extension of the discovery deadline is fully supported by
“good cause” as discussed below.
A statement specifying the discovery completed.
date, the parties have exchanged initial Rule 26 disclosures
as well as written discovery. Since the last request
discovery two key depositions were taken in December 2017, in
addition to the three current Plaintiffs. Due to the amount of
Plaintiffs in this case (four including Ms. Varay) the
deposition of Tim Cook, the Security Director, was continued
and will proceed in February, 2017. The deposition of Ms. Beatrice
Vattima, the former Labor Relations Manager, involved in this
case and in another matter pending in this Court has been
delayed because she moved to California and while she was
amenable to appear for deposition while in Nevada that is no
longer the case. The parties are working with her to find a
suitable time to depose her in this matter and another age
discrimination case to minimize the impact and disruption to
the deposition of Tim Cook in December, 2017, counsel stated
that he wanted to take the deposition of another three (3)
employees. Defendant has agreed to produce those who are
still working but the parties have been having problems
locating another witness which more than likely has left the
state. Because of some testimony in Mr. Cook's deposition
this witness has become very relevant.
propounded additional written discovery to Plaintiffs which
remains outstanding. Likewise, the parties are trying to
resolve various pending discovery disputes and they are
hopeful that with the extension, it can be fully resolved or
in the alternative, to narrow the scope of what will need to
be presented to the Court. In the past, the parties have
worked diligent to resolve issues without Court involvement.
counsel for both parties have other cases before this Court,
which involve overlapping witnesses to some extent and, thus,
the attorneys for both parties are coordinating the
scheduling of the depositions in such cases to minimize the
burden on the witnesses and travel for out-of-state counsel.
and perhaps more importantly, counsel are engaged in
settlement talks that would benefit from this extension as
the parties would not be forced to spent significant time and