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.

Bolding v. NAV-LVH Casino, LLC

United States District Court, D. Nevada

January 16, 2018

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.

          Law Offices of Michael P. Balaban, Michael P. Balaban, Esq., Attorneys for Plaintiffs.



         Pursuant 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 follows:

         Relevant Procedural Posture and Facts

         1. On 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.

         2. 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[1] and based on the Court's Order there is no one at this time authorized to act on her behalf.

         3. 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.

         4. As 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) A statement specifying the discovery completed.

         To 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.[2] 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.[3] 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 this witness.

         During 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.

         Defendant 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.

         Further, 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.

         Lastly, 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 ...

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.