Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2:13-CV-00649-JCM-GWF. (2018)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20180223f06 Visitors: 9
Filed: Feb. 21, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS (First Request) GEORGE FOLEY, JR. , Magistrate Judge . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells Fargo") and Bourne Valley Court Trust ("Bourne Valley", and with Wells Fargo, the "Parties") through their counsel of record hereby respectfully request the Court enter an order, pursuant to Local Rules IA 6-1 and 26-4, extending the dispositive motion deadlines set forth in the Order entered on October 25, 2017 (ECF No. 110). The dispos
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS

(First Request)

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells Fargo") and Bourne Valley Court Trust ("Bourne Valley", and with Wells Fargo, the "Parties") through their counsel of record hereby respectfully request the Court enter an order, pursuant to Local Rules IA 6-1 and 26-4, extending the dispositive motion deadlines set forth in the Order entered on October 25, 2017 (ECF No. 110). The dispositive motion deadline in the Order has not expired and is currently scheduled for February 28, 2018.

On December 22, 2017, non-party Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("Freddie Mac") filed a Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 115) seeking to avoid a deposition pursuant to a subpoena served by Bourne Valley. In scheduling a hearing on that motion, the Magistrate concluded that if the "Motion for Protective Order is denied, the Court will grant additional discovery time to complete the deposition that is underlying the motion." Minute Order dated Dec. 26, 2017(ECF No. 116). On February 15, 2018, the Court denied Freddie Mac's Motion for Protective Order and further ordered counsel for Freddie Mac and Bourne Valley to continue meet and confer efforts. Order at 3:6-7 (ECF No. 118). If Freddie Mac and Bourne Valley are unable to agree on the deposition topics, the Magistrate has contemplated that Freddie Mac may file an additional motion to determine the scope of the deposition. Id. at 3-8. Given the nature of this process, the Parties request a 90-day extension in which to file their dispositive motions to allow for the deposition of Freddie Mac. The Parties further agree that if additional motion practice is necessary concerning the scope of the deposition of Freddie Mac or if the deposition does not take place before the dispositive motion deadline, the Parties may request an additional extension in good faith.

I. Good Cause for Extending Deadline for Filing Dispositive Motions

This requested extension is the result of non-party Freddie Mac's Motion for Protective Order relating to its deposition.

Additionally, although the dispositive motion deadline has been moved once before, that was due to a motion filed by The Parks Homeowners Association, a party now dismissed. See Order dated Oct. 25, 2017 (ECF No. 110). Wells Fargo's Motion to Stay Discovery and Extend Dispositive Motion Deadlines was simultaneously denied. Id. This is the Parties' first stipulated request to extend the deadlines. This request is not made for any deleterious purpose or to cause delay, but is made in good faith by the Parties as the result of the non-party discovery motion practice in this litigation.

II. Proposed Schedule

The Parties respectfully request that the Court extend the dispositive motion deadline by 90 days until May 29, 2018.

The Parties respectfully request that the Court grant this Stipulation and extend the dispositive motion deadline as set forth herein.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer