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.

Barnum v. Equifax Information Services, LLC

United States District Court, D. Nevada

July 12, 2018

SHARON BARNUM and ROBERT SUSTRIK, and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs,
v.
EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, Defendant.

          Matthew I. Knepper, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 12796 Miles N. Clark, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 13848 KNEPPER & CLARK LLC, David H. Krieger, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 9086 HAINES & KRIEGER, LLC Counsel for Plaintiff

          Misty L. Peterson, Esq. Zachary A. McEntyre, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP, Bryan Zubay, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP Bradley T. Austin, Esq. Nevada State Bar No. 13064 SNELL & WILMER, LLP Counsel for Equifax Information Services, LLC

          STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

          Nancy J. Koppe, United States Magistrate Judge

         Plaintiffs Sharon Barnum and Robert Sustrik (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Equifax Information Services, LLC (“Equifax”) have agreed and stipulated to the following:

         1. The current deadline for filing dispositive motions and a motion for class certification (the “Motions Deadline”) is July 23, 2018. (See Fifth Stip. to Extend Disc. Deadlines [Dkt. 117]; Order [Dkt. 118].)

         2. On June 22, 2018, Equifax served Plaintiff with data it obtained from third-party Fidelity National Card Services, Inc. (the “FIS Production”). As detailed in the briefing on Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion to Compel and for Sanctions (the “Emergency Motion”) [Dkts. 121, 122, 128, 129, 132], Plaintiffs raised objections to the propriety of the FIS Production and sought various information from Equifax pertaining to the FIS Production. The parties thereafter exchanged numerous emails and ultimately conducted a Rule 26-7 conference on Friday, June 29, 2018. Both parties devoted significant time to preparing for and attending the Rule 26-7 conference.

         3. The conference was unsuccessful in resolving Plaintiffs' objections to the FIS Production and request for information, and Plaintiffs informed Equifax that they would therefore file their Emergency Motion.

         4. Recognizing that the Emergency Motion would require significant-and immediate-attention from both parties, the parties agreed to a stay of the Motions Deadline pending resolution of the Emergency Motion and thus filed, on July 2, 2018, their Stipulation [Dkt. 119] for such a stay.

         5. On July 5, 2018, the Court denied the stay requested in the Stipulation, without prejudice, because Plaintiffs had not yet actually filed their Emergency Motion. (See Order Dkt. 120 (emphasis added) (“The Court does not grant such relief based on hypothetical filings.”).)

         6. On the afternoon of Friday, July 6, 2018, Plaintiffs filed their Emergency Motion.

         7. Equifax immediately began preparing its response to the Emergency Motion, which it filed on the morning of Monday, July 9, 2018 [Dkt. 128].

         8. On July 10, 2018, Plaintiffs filed their reply in support of the Emergency Motion [Dkt. 132].

         9. On the same day-July 10, 2018-the Court denied the Emergency Motion.

         10. Addressing the dispute over the FIS Production required significant time and attention from the parties (beginning on Monday, June 25 and extending through the course of the July Fourth holiday, through yesterday) that necessarily could not be devoted to dispositive and class-certification motions. The parties agree that they both will ...


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.