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.

Basile v. Novak

United States District Court, D. Nevada

November 18, 2019

CHRISTOPHER BASILE, Plaintiff,
v.
KIRSTEN NOVAK, Defendant.

          DAVID J. WINTERTON & ASSOCIATES, LTD David J. Winterton, Esq., Attorneys for Defendant

          McDONALD CARANO LLP, Kristen Gallagher, Esq., Amanda Perach, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff

          STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES (SECOND REQUEST)

         Pursuant to Local Rules 6-1 and 26-4, Plaintiff Christopher Basile (“Basile”) and defendant Kirsten Novak (“Novak” and with Basile, the “Parties”), through their respective undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree to extend the current schedule for discovery deadlines by 90 days. Good cause exists in this instance because certain discovery has been delayed due to the unavailability of the parties, difficulty in serving certain parties and because several non-parties have raised concerns over their production of documents and testimony.

         The Court initially entered a Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order on May 23, 2019 (ECF No. 18) (the “Scheduling Order”). This stipulation will be received by the Court “no later than twenty-one (21) days before the expiration of the subject deadline, ” as is required by LR 26-4.

         Pursuant to LR 6-1 and 26-4, and good cause appearing therefor, the Parties hereby make the following required statements:

         A. Specific Discovery Completed. The following discovery has been completed:

         On May 30, 2019, Basile made his initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a). On July 11, 2019, Novak made her initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a). On July 22, 2019, Basile served his Requests for Production of Documents on Novak. On the same date, Basile served a subpoena to produce documents on Verizon Wireless (the “Verizon Subpoena”). On July 30, 2019, Basile received a response to the Verizon Subpoena stating that no records would be produced due to certain protections afforded to subscribers in California under California law. On July 22, 2019, Basile served requests for production of documents. On or around September 9, 2019, Novak provided responses to such requests which have since been supplemented. On August 19, 2019, Novak served requests for production of documents and interrogatories. On October 7, 2019, Basile provided responses to such requests which have since been supplemented. The deposition of Novak was taken on September 20, 2019 and the deposition of Basile was taken on October 28, 2019.

         B. Discovery Remaining.

         The parties anticipate that they will collectively take at least fifteen depositions. Counsel anticipates that they will work cooperatively in setting firm dates, times and locations to complete these depositions. Although the parties have been working in good faith to proceed forward with discovery, given conflicting schedules and the inability to serve and locate certain non-parties, and the location of certain depositions, it has been difficult to schedule depositions and it is, therefore, necessary that all discovery be continued to allow for coordination of these schedules and to locate non-parties. In addition, due to the concerns raised by counsel for Novak's divorce attorneys regarding the subpoenas issued to them, Basile has been forced to delay certain other discovery which would have relied on the records located. Basile anticipates issuing interrogatories and requests for admission to Novak and may issue additional document subpoenas to third parties depending on the results of certain other depositions. Based on the foregoing, the parties respectfully request that the remaining discovery deadlines be amended accordingly.

         C. Why Discovery Was Not Completed.

         As noted above, due to the inability to locate certain non-parties, depositions could not be scheduled within sufficient time prior to the discovery deadline. In addition, because of Novak's divorce attorneys' concerns relating to Basile's subpoenas, certain discovery has been delayed to allow such non-parties to investigate these issues. Accordingly, due to these delays, additional time is necessary for the parties to complete their discovery.

         D. Proposed Discovery Schedule.

         The parties propose the following amended discovery plan and scheduling order:

1. Fact Discovery: The parties propose that the deadline for discovery be extended from December 18, 2019 ...

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.