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.

Roberts v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

March 16, 2018

DANIEL T. ROBERTS, an individual, Plaintiff,
v.
AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Wisconsin corporation; and DOES I through X, and ROE CORPORATIONS I through X, inclusive, Defendants

          LLOYD W. BAKER, ESQ. Nevada Bar No.: 6893 CHRIS CAWLFIELD, ESQ. Nevada Bar No.: 13669 BAKER LAW OFFICES Attorneys for Plaintiff

          CHRISTIAN M. MORRIS, ESQ. Nevada Bar No.: 11218 NETTLES LAW FIRM Attorney for Plaintiff

          HUTCHISON & STEFFEN, LLC Scott A. Flinders (6975) Attorney for Defendant

          STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES

         Plaintiff, DANIEL T. ROBERTS (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY (“Defendant”), by and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate to the extension of all discovery deadlines by thirty (30) days.

         Pursuant to Local Rule 6-1(B), the parties hereby aver that this is the third discovery extension requested in this matter and is not sought for the purposes of delay.

         DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO DATE

         The parties have conducted an FRCP 26(f) conference and have served their respective 26(a) disclosures as well as their initial expert disclosures pursuant to F.R.C.P. 26(a)(2)(B) and 26(a)(2)(C). Plaintiff served his initial 26(a) disclosures on or around August 23, 2017. Defendant served its initial 26(a) disclosures on or around September 13, 2017. Both parties served their respective initial expert disclosures on November 10, 2017 pursuant to a written agreement to extend the deadline by one week. Written discovery has been propounded by both sides and all written discovery has been answered. The deposition of the Plaintiff was taken on January 3, 2017. The deposition of Defense expert Brian Jones was taken on January 5, 2018. Plaintiff's insurance claims expert, Everett Lee Herdon, Jr., had his deposition taken on January 16, 2018. Defense expert Dr. Rimodi had his deposition taken on January 24, 2018. Finally, Plaintiff's treating physician, Dr. William Muir, had his deposition taken on February 20, 2018.

         DISCOVERY TO BE COMPLETED AND REASON FOR EXTENDING DISCOVERY

         Discovery to be completed includes: 30(b)(6) deposition of American Family Insurance. Pursuant to Local Rule 6-1, both parties agree that good cause and excusable neglect exist for this requested extension. Counsel have been in communication about the availability of the person most knowledgeable from Defendant American Family Insurance. Plaintiff's counsel were not informed about the availability of the 30(b)(6) deponent until March 13, 2018 despite having noticed the deposition twice - the first notice was served on January 16, 2018 which set a deposition date of February 1, 2018, and the amended notice was served on February 27th, 2018 which set a deposition date of March 22, 2018. The parties agreed to vacate the first deposition date because counsel for Defendant was still having difficulty identifying the person most knowledgeable for American Family Insurance. On March 13, 2018, counsel for Defendant indicated that American Family's person most knowledgeable has now been identified; however, the deposition must take place in Phoenix, Arizona and it cannot take place until April after the current discovery cutoff because counsel for Defendant and the person most knowledgeable cannot attend the current deposition set for March 22, 2018. Therefore, both sides agree that a thirty day (30) extension is warranted in order to complete the 30(b)(6) deposition.

         Defendant's counsel filed a motion for summary judgment on March 13, 2018. Plaintiff attempted to take the 30(b)(6) deposition well before the current discovery cutoff date and before the motion was filed. Counsel for Defendant has indicated he will vacate and re-file the motion for summary judgment because of our agreement to extend discovery in order to take the 30(b)(6) deposition. It would be highly prejudicial to Plaintiff should the 30(b)(6) deposition not take place before Plaintiff's opposition is completed and oral arguments are heard on the motion for summary judgment. As such, Plaintiff's counsel and Defendant's counsel are in agreement that additional time for discovery is necessary due to the unavailability of Defendant's person most knowledgeable.

         PROPOSED NEW DISCOVERY DEADLINES

Rebuttal Expert Disclosures
Current: CLOSED
Proposed: CLOSED

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.