MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL [ECF No. 90] (SECOND REQUEST)

PEGGY A. LEEN, Magistrate Judge.

Jake's Crane, Rigging & Transport International, Inc., as well as the other entities (collectively, "Jake's") by and through its counsel of record Albert G. Marquis, Esq., Chad F. Clement, Esq., and James Beckstrom, Esq., of the law firm of Marquis Aurbach Coffing, hereby submits its Motion to Extend Time to File its Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel from its current due date, that being Monday, November 13, 2017, for fourteen (14) calendar days; which would make the due date November 28, 2017. This Motion is made and based upon the papers and pleadings on file herein and the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities. This motion is filed on November 13, 2017. See LR 6-1.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. INTRODUCTION

Jake's hereby moves this Court for a two week extension of time to file an Opposition to Bemo USA Coporation's Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena Duces Tecum to Rich Wightman & Company. This Motion is supported by good cause as indicated by the Declaration of Chad Clement, Esq., attached hereto, and made without the intent to delay, hinder, or frustrate proceedings.

II. FACTS RELEVANT TO THIS REQUEST

The instant Motion follows diligent efforts by the counsel for Jake's to timely resolve the underlying objections to the subpoena duces tecum to Rich Wightman & Company ("Wightman") without judicial intervention. Counsel has diligently worked with opposing counsel Phillip Varricchio, Esq. and Rachel J. Holzer, Esq., in an attempt to avoid having to file the instant Motion to no avail.

The Subpoena Duces Tecum was issued to Wightman, a non-party accountant for Jake's, seeking production of records on February 1, 2017. Within that Subpoena, Plaintiff sought production of nearly twenty-five years of documents relating to six non-party entities, containing no proximal limitation. Additionally, the Subpoena sought information that contained privileged accountant-client information, as to the same six non-party entities. The subpoena requested Wightman produce:

See Exhibit 1, attached to ECF DKT. No. 90.

On February 10, 2017, counsel for Wightman, Frank Ellis, Esq. served a written objection pursuant to FRCP 45(2)(B). Additionally, Jake's served a written objection on March 6, 2017. Following the written objections by both Jake's and Wightman, Plaintiff had limited contact with Jake's or Wightman for almost eight months. Based on the understanding the parties were working towards an amicable solution to narrow the scope and proximity of the requests, counsel for both Jake's and Wightman waited for Bemo to provide further information as to how they would agree to narrow the requests at issue.

On October 18, 2017, Bemo, after months of no communication with Jake's or Wightman, filed the underlying Motion to Compel. As set forth in the Declaration of Chad Clement, Esq., since the filing of Bemo's Motion to Compel, Jake's has made numerous good faith efforts to contact his clients. Additionally, Jake's counsel has reached out to Bemo in an attempt to narrow the scope of information requested and produce the requested information without judicial intervention. However, based on counsel's current trial schedule and Mr. Ellis being out of the jurisdiction from November 6, 2017 through November 10, 2017, counsel has been unable to meaningfully discuss the underlying requests. During this time, Counsel for Jake's has been working diligently to discuss the requests with Jake's, but due to conflicting schedules, over twenty-five years of documents being requested, and the fact the subpoenaed entities have different ownership structures, counsel has been unable to fully investigate any opposition to such requests.

On November 3, 2017, Bemo, Wightman, and Jake's stipulated to extend the Opposition Deadline to November 13, 2017, in order for Jake's and Wightman to further contact their clients and narrow the scope of information requested. However, as indicated supra, because of conflicting schedules between Wightman and Jake's counsel, as well as their respective clients, counsel has been unable to obtain such information before the looming November 13, 2017 deadline. On November 13, 2017, counsel for Jake's contacted counsel for Bemo by telephone and email to request a stipulation under the above noted circumstances. However, counsel was unwilling to extend such extension. Additionally, on November 13, 2017, the James A. Beckstrom, Esq., again contacted Bemo's counsel Phillip Varricchio, Esq. and Rachel Holzer, Esq., by electronic mail and telephone to express the reasons for delay and to ask for a two week continuance. However, Bemo was again unwilling to extend such extension and waited until 3:55 PM to inform Jake's of their refusal to extend the two week continuance.

III. LEGAL ARGUMENT

Pursuant to LR 6-1, a Court may grant an extension of time upon a showing of good cause. As indicated by the Declaration of Chad Clement, Esq., good cause exists and therefore, the Motion to Extend Time should be granted.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Jake's respectfully asks this Court to grant a two week extension to file an opposition to the Motion to Compel, with the new deadline to be November 28, 2017.

DECLARATION OF CHAD F. CLEMENT, ESQ., IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM TO RICH WIGHTMAN & COMPANY

Chad F. Clement, Esq., declares as follows:

1. I am over the age of 18 years and have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein, except for those stated upon information and belief, and as to those, I believe them to be true. I am competent to testify as to the facts stated herein in a court of law and will so testify if called upon.

2. I am a Director with the law firm of Marquis Aurbach Coffing ("MAC"), counsel of record for defendant Jake's Crane, Rigging & Transport International, Inc., as well as the other entities (collectively, "Jake's") in this case. I make this Declaration in support of the Motion to Extend Time to File Opposition to Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena Duces Tecum ("Motion").

3. The Subpoena Duces Tecum ("Subpoena") was issued to Wightman, a non-party accountant for Defendant Jake's Crane, seeking production of records on February 1, 2017.

4. On February 10, 2017, counsel for Wightman, Frank Ellis, Esq. served a written objection pursuant to FRCP 45(2)(B).

5. Additionally, Jake's served a written objection on March 6, 2017. The basis for the objection was on the grounds the information requested (1) calls for accountant-client privileged information, NRS 49.125-49.2.05, as it calls for "any and all documentation of financial records . . .;" (2) calls for sensitive, confidential, and/or proprietary personal and business information, as it calls for financial information from entities who were not parties to the case and are not subject to the judgment; (3) is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as the request contains no time limitation, is extremely broad, calling for "any and all documentation of financial records . . . which name, benefit and/or identify [7 entities]," and calls for information from entities who were not parties to the case and are not subject to the judgment; (4) is duplicative, as some of the requested documents have already been produced; (5) is vague and ambiguous, given its breadth and scope; (6) calls for irrelevant information, given its breadth and scope; and (7) seeks case or liability related discovery, not post-judgment discovery.

6. Following the written objections by both Jake's and Wightman, Bemo's counsel agreed to narrow the scope of its requests within the Subpoena to avoid judicial intervention.

7. Counsel for Bemo failed to contact the undersigned for approximately eight months after the discussions.

8. On or about October 18, 2017, Bemo filed a Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena Duces Tecum to Rich Wightman & Company.

9. Counsel for Bemo did not have a substantive meet and confer with the undersigned before filing the Motion to Compel.

10. On October 31, 2017, the undersigned had a telephone conversation with Bemo counsel Phillip Varricchio, where the Subpoena requests were discussed at length and the parties agreed to attempt to narrow the scope of the requests.

11. Following the October 31, 2017, telephone call with opposing counsel, the undersigned diligently attempted to contact Jake's to discuss the information requested in the Subpoena. However, because of conflicting schedules, the undersigned has been unable to meaningfully discuss the requested information contained with the Subpoena before the November 13, 2017 deadline.

12. Additionally, the undersigned has been unable to discuss the feasibility of producing the requested information with Wightman's counsel or determine what types of information Wightman has in his possession.

13. Upon information and belief of the undersigned, a large number of the documents requested within the Subpoena are subject to accountant-client privilege.

14. On November 3, 2017, Bemo, Wightman, and Jake's stipulated to extend the Opposition Deadline to November 13, 2017, in order for Jake's and Wightman to further contact their clients and narrow the scope of information requested.

15. Because of conflicting schedules between Wightman and Jake's counsel, as well as their respective clients, and a shortened week due to Veterans Day, the undersigned has been unable to obtain such information before the looming November 13, 2017 deadline.

16. Additionally, the undersigned was subject to prescheduled depositions, hearings, and conferences the entire week November 6, 2017, and Frank Ellis, counsel for Wightman was out of the office the week of November 6, 2017.

17. To avoid filing the instant Motion, on November 13, 2017 the undersigned contacted Bemo counsel Phillip Varricchio, Esq. and Rachel Holzer, Esq., by telephone to express the reasons for delay and to ask for a two week continuance, but was unable to reach counsel either Mr. Varricchio or Ms. Holzer.

18. Additionally, on November 13, 2017, the undersigned's associate James A. Beckstrom, Esq., again contacted Bemo's counsel Phillip Varricchio, Esq. and Rachel Holzer, Esq., by electronic mail and telephone to express the reasons for delay and to ask for a two week continuance.

19. Counsel for Bemo refused any such continuance to both requests, therefore necessitating the instant Motion.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 and NRS § 53.045, I declare under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct.

IT IS ORDERED that defendant shall have until November 28, 2017, to file an opposition to the motion, and plaintiff shall have until December 5, 2017, to file a reply. The hearing on the Motion to Compel (ECF No. 90) is set for 10:30 a.m., December 19, 2017.