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.

Cirrus Aviation Services, LLC v. Cirrus Design Corp.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

March 18, 2019

CIRRUS AVIATION SERVICES, LLC, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
v.
CIRRUS DESIGN CORPORATION, Defendant/Counter-Claimant.

          Michael J. McCue Meng Zhong LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP Attorneys for Defendant/Counter-Claimant Cirrus Design Corporation

          Mark J. Connot Kevin M. Sutehall FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Cirrus Aviation Services, LLC

          STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND CASE MANAGEMENT DEADLINES (THIRD REQUEST)

         Pursuant to Local Rules 7-1 and 26-4, Plaintiff Cirrus Aviation Services, LLC (“Cirrus Aviation”) and Defendant Cirrus Design Corporation d/b/a Cirrus Aircraft (“Cirrus Aircraft”), by and through their respective counsel, hereby agree and stipulate to extend certain case management deadlines set forth in the Court's Scheduling Order (ECF No. 30) and Order Granting Stipulation to Extend Discovery Deadlines (ECF No. 35) for a period of 45 days. This is the parties' third request for an extension of time. Two prior extensions have been granted. The parties' stipulation is supported by the following:

         I. Good Cause.

         Good cause for the requested extensions of time exists. The Parties have worked diligently to meet the Court-ordered fact discovery deadline of May 18, 2019. Both parties have exchanged and requested document production, and are currently discussing dates to complete depositions of lay and expert witnesses. The parties have encountered significant deposition scheduling challenges on both sides, but are continuing to communicate and attempting to cooperate in scheduling depositions.

         Shortly after the second extension was granted by this Court on January 30, 2019, Defendant Cirrus Aircraft began trying to find available dates for the 30(b)(6) corporate deposition of Cirrus Design noticed by Plaintiff Cirrus Aviation. Cirrus Aircraft's efforts to find dates for that deposition was complicated by several factors, including the following:

• The list of topics identified by Cirrus Aviation for the 30(b)(6) deposition was lengthy and detailed, encompassing 29 separate topics. Cirrus Aircraft determined that the most appropriate witnesses to represent it were three high-ranking executives, including its President of Customer Experience and SVP of Sales and Marketing, all of whom maintain extremely busy travel schedules;
• Cirrus Aircraft sought back-to-back dates when all three corporate designees could be available in the same city, assuming that the deposition would take two days to complete;
• Many of the most time-consuming and important events on Cirrus Aircraft's 2019 calendar occur during the first four months of the year and require extensive preparation and travel, including widely-attended air shows in Florida and Germany and Cirrus Aircraft's own board meeting in China, among other business commitments. The business responsibilities of the proposed 30(b)(6) corporate designees require their attendance at these events;
• Cirrus Aircraft determined that the three corporate designees could first be available on consecutive dates on April 30 and May 1, 2019. Cirrus Aircraft proposed that Cirrus Aviation hold the deposition on those dates in Knoxville, Tennessee, where two of the designees are based;
• Counsel for Cirrus Aviation was unavailable on April 30 and May 1, so Cirrus Aircraft cleared and proposed alternate dates, May 9 and 10, and cooperatively agreed to conduct the deposition in Las Vegas, Nevada, where Cirrus Aviation's counsel is based. Cirrus Aviation expressed concerns that all of these proposed dates would result in the deposition occurring shortly before discovery currently closes on May 19, 2019 and would not provide adequate time for any follow-up discovery after the 30(b)(6) deposition. While Cirrus Aviation is potentially amenable to taking the depositions on May 9 and 10 in Las Vegas, agreement to do so is contingent on the extensions contemplated in this stipulation being granted.

         Cirrus Aviation has also encountered challenges in scheduling dates for the depositions that Cirrus Aircraft wants to take of Cirrus Aviation's current and past executives:

• Cirrus Aircraft has requested that that Cirrus Aviation provide available dates for the depositions of Mark Woods, Greg Woods, and Milt Woods, all of whom are identified in Cirrus Aviation's Initial Disclosures and/or in documents produced in discovery as potential witnesses;
• On March 8, 2019, Cirrus Aircraft served a notice of FRCP 30(b)(6) deposition on Cirrus Aviation. The notice identified 21 topics of inquiry plus subparts. Cirrus Aviation anticipates that some combination of Mark Woods, Greg Woods, Milt Woods, and potentially others will be designated to testify on its behalf. Mark Woods and Milt Woods are pilots with variable work schedules, while Greg Woods is generally available on Tuesday and Wednesdays. Before pinning down dates for the individual depositions of Mark, Greg, and Milt Woods, and before setting the Rule ...

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.