STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY ACTION TO ALLOW PARTIES TO ATTEND MEDIATION AND TO EXTEND THE DISCOVERY CUT OFF DATE AND DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE TO ALLOW FOR THE COMPLETION OF ALL PENDING DISCOVERY IF MEDIATION IS NOT SUCCESSFUL

(Second Request)

CARL W. HOFFMAN, Magistrate Judge.

Pursuant to LR 6-2 and 26-4 the Parties, through their respective counsel of record, hereby agree and stipulate and request this Court to issue a stay in the pending discovery to allow the Parties to participate in mediation or a settlement conference. The Parties further request that the current discovery cut-off date be extended to expire thirty (30) days after conclusion of mediation or the settlement conference and the dispositive motion deadline be extended to expire at sixty 60) days after the conclusion of mediation or settlement conference. In support of this Stipulation and Request, the Parties state as follows:

A. DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO DATE

i. Production of Witnesses and Documents:

1. Plaintiffs Top Rank Builders, Inc. ("TRB") and Efrain Rene Morales Moreno ("Morales") (collectively, the "Plaintiffs") produced their Initial List of Witnesses and Documents.

2. Plaintiffs produced their First Supplemental List of Witnesses and Documents.

3. Plaintiffs produced their Second Supplemental List of Witnesses and Documents.

4. Defendant Nye County ("Nye") produced its Initial List of Witnesses and Documents.

5. Defendant Nye produced its First Supplement to List of Witnesses and Documents.

6. Defendant Nye produced its Second Supplement to List of Witnesses and Documents.

7. Defendant Charles Abbott Associates, Inc. ("CAA") produced its Initial List of Witnesses and Documents.

8. Defendant CAA produced its First Supplement to List of Witnesses and Documents.

9. Defendant CAA produced its Second Supplement to List of Witnesses and Documents.

10. Defendant CAA produced its Third Supplement to List of Witnesses and Documents.

11. Defendant CAA produced its Fourth Supplement to its List of Witnesses and Documents.

12. Defendant William B. Browning ("Browning") produced his Initial List of Witnesses and Documents.

13. Defendant American Wind & Solar, Inc. ("AWS") produced its Initial List of Witnesses and Documents.

ii. Written Discovery and Responses:

14. Plaintiff TRB issued its First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant CAA.

15. Plaintiff TRB issued his First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Nye.

16. Plaintiff TRB issued its First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant AWS.

17. Plaintiff TRB issued its First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Browning.

18. Plaintiff TRB issued its First Set of Request for Production of Documents to Defendant CAA.

19. Plaintiff TRB issued its Second Set of Request for Production of Documents to Defendant CAA.

20. Plaintiff TRB issued its First Set of Request for Production of Documents to Defendant Nye.

21. Plaintiff TRB issued its First Set of Request for Production of Documents to Defendant Browning.

22. Plaintiff TRB issued its First Set of Request for Production of Documents to Defendant AWS.

23. Plaintiff Morales issued his First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant CAA.

24. Plaintiff Morales issued his First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Nye.

25. Plaintiff Morales issued his First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Browning.

26. Plaintiff Morales issues his First Set of Request for Production of Documents to Defendant CAA.

27. Plaintiff Morales issues his First Set of Request for Production of Documents to Defendant Nye.

28. Plaintiff Morales issues his First Set of Request for Production of Documents to Defendant Browning.

29. Plaintiff Morales issues his First Set of Request for Admissions to Defendant Browning.

30. Plaintiff Morales issues his First Set of Request for Admissions to Defendant Nye.

31. Defendant CAA issued its First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff TRB.

32. Defendant CAA issued its First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff Morales.

33. Defendant CAA issued its First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Nye.

34. Defendant CAA issued its First Set of Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff TRB.

35. Defendant CAA issued its Second Set of Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff TRB.

36. Defendant CAA issued its Third Set of Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff TRB.

37. Defendant CAA Issued its First Set of Request for Admissions to Defendant Nye.

38. Defendant CAA issued its First Set of Request for Admissions to Defendant AWS.

39. Defendant CAA issued its First Set of Request for Admissions to Defendant Browning.

40. Defendant Nye issued its First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff TRB.

41. Defendant Nye issued its First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff Morales.

42. Defendant Nye issued its First Set of Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff TRB.

43. Defendant Nye issued its First Set of Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff Morales.

44. Defendant Browning issued his First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff TRB.

45. Defendant Browning issued his First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff Morales.

46. Defendant Browning issued his First Set of Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff TRB.

47. Defendant Browning issued his First Set of Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff Morales.

48. Defendant Browning issued his First Set of Request for Admissions to Plaintiff TRB.

49. Defendant Browning issued his First Set of Request for Admissions to Plaintiff Morales.

50. Defendant CAA issued its responses to Plaintiff TRB's First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant CAA.

51. Defendant Nye issued its responses to Plaintiff TRB's First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Nye.

52. Defendant AWS issued its responses to Plaintiff TRB's First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant AWS.

53. Defendant Browning issued its responses to Plaintiff TRB's First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Browning.

54. Defendant Browning issued its first supplement to answers to Plaintiff TRB's First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Browning.

55. Defendant CAA issued its responses to Plaintiff TRB's First Set of Request for Production of Documents to Defendant CAA.

56. Defendant CAA issued its responses to Plaintiff TRB's Second Set of Request for Production of Documents to Defendant CAA.

57. Defendant Nye issued its responses to Plaintiff TRB's First Set of Request for Production of Documents to Defendant Nye.

58. Defendant Browning issued his responses to Plaintiff TRB's First Set of Request for Production of Documents to Defendant Browning.

59. Defendant AWS issued its responses to Plaintiff TRB's First Set of Request for Production of Documents to Defendant AWS.

60. Defendant CAA issued its responses to Plaintiff Morales' First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant CAA.

61. Defendant Nye issued its responses to Plaintiff Morales' First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Nye.

62. Defendant Browning issued his responses to Plaintiff Morales' First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Browning.

63. Defendant Browning issued his first supplement to answers to Plaintiff Morales' First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Browning.

64. Defendant CAA issued its responses to Plaintiff Morales' First Set of Request for Production of Documents to Defendant CAA.

65. Defendant Nye issued its responses to Plaintiff Morales' First Set of Request for Production of Documents to Defendant Nye.

66. Defendant Browning issued his responses to Plaintiff Morales' First Set of Request for Production of Documents to Defendant Browning.

67. Defendant Browning issued his responses to Plaintiff Morales' First Set of Request for Admissions to Defendant Browning.

68. Defendant Browning issued his supplement to answers to Plaintiff Morales' First Set of Request for Admissions.

69. Defendant Nye issued its responses to Plaintiff Morales' First Set of Request for Admissions to Defendant Nye.

70. Plaintiff TRB issued its responses to Defendant CAA's First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff TRB.

71. Plaintiff Morales' issued his responses to Defendant CAA's First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff Morales.

72. Defendant Nye issued its responses to Defendant CAA's First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Nye.

73. Plaintiff TRB issued its responses to Defendant CAA's First Set of Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff TRB.

74. Plaintiff TRB issued its responses to Defendant CAA's Second Set of Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff TRB.

75. Plaintiff TRB issued its responses to Defendant CAA's Third Set of Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff TRB.

76. Defendant Nye issued its responses to Defendant CAA's First Set of Request for Admissions to Defendant Nye.

77. Defendant AWS issued its responses to Defendant CAA's First Set of Request for Admissions to Defendant AWS.

78. Defendant Browning issued his responses to Defendant CAA's First Set of Request for Admissions to Defendant Browning.

79. Plaintiff TRB issued its responses to Defendant Nye's First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff TRB.

80. Plaintiff Morales issued his responses to Defendant Nye's First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff Morales.

81. Plaintiff TRB issued its responses to Defendant Nye's First Set of Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff TRB.

82. Plaintiff Morales' issued his responses to Defendant Nye's First Set of Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff Morales.

iii. Experts:

83. Plaintiffs TRB and Morales have produced their initial list of expert witnesses, summaries and designations.

84. Defendants CAA and Browning have produced their rebuttal expert witnesses, qualifications and reports.

iv. Depositions

85. Deposition of Plaintiff Efrain Rene Morales, individually and as 30(b)(6) witness for Plaintiff TRB.

86. Custodian of Record Depositions for Green Cross of America, Inc. (nonappearance), SATI Construction and Nye Farm Tech (non-appearance).

87. Deposition of Nye County's 30(b)(6) Witness for Nye County's licensing and Permitting Policies and Procedures and Knowledge as to Projects involving Green Cross of America, Inc.

88. Deposition Faith Simunick, former CAA employee.

89. Deposition of Pamela Webster, Nye County Manager.

90. Deposition of Peter Gnecco, Green Cross of America, Inc.

91. Deposition of Gary Carlson, AIA.

92. Deposition of William Browning.

93. Deposition of Nye Farm Tech, Ltd.'s 30(b)(6) Witness.

v. Third Party Subpoenas for Records

94. Defendant CAA issued subpoena duces tecum to the State of Nevada Board of Contractors.

95. Defendant CAA issued its subpoena duces tecum to Green Cross of America, Inc.

96. Defendant CAA issued its subpoena duces tecum to SATI Construction.

97. Defendant CAA issued its subpoena duces tecum to Nye Farm Tech, Ltd.

98. Defendant Nye issued its subpoena duces tecum to Green Cross of America, Inc.

99. Plaintiff TRB issued its subpoena duces tecum to the State of Nevada Board of Contractors.

B. DISCOVERY REMAINING-IN PROGRESS

The Parties have the following depositions scheduled for this action:

1. The Deposition of the 30(b)(6) witness for Esmeralda County;

2. The Deposition of Guy Marzola, Green Cross of America, Inc.

3. The Deposition of Kevin Fisher, Green Cross of America, Inc.

4. The Deposition of Sean Wilson, TRB and designated as non-retained expert for Plaintiffs TRB and Morales.

5. The Deposition of Dan Ames, D&J Electrical.

6. The Deposition of Geraldo Guzman, Ganda Concrete.

7. The Deposition of L. Darrell Lacy, Nye.

8. Plaintiffs TRB and Morales' responses to Defendant Browning's written discovery due one week after resumption of discovery.

9. Any and all supplements to prior discovery requests (written and/or at deposition) wherein the responding party represented that they will supplement their response at a future date.

Based on the amounts of fees and costs incurred by the Parties to date, discussions have arisen about staying all remaining discovery and litigation and placing this matter into mediation or settlement conference. The fees and costs estimated by the Parties moving forward to complete discovery; file dispositive motions, oppositions and replies; appear at hearings and court ordered conferences; engage in extensive pre-trial litigation; and finally prepare for and attend trial is estimated to be a significant. Extensive discovery has assisted the Parties in identifying and eliminating claims, issues, damages and to assess any potential risks to the Parties in the action. Therefore, the Parties believe the time is ripe and there is universal interest in the Parties to pursue an avenue to stop the further incursion of fees and costs and to engage in meaningful settlement discussions concerning the action.

If mediation or settlement conference is not successful, the Parties request the present discovery cut-off date be extended to expire thirty (30) days after the formal termination of mediation or settlement conference. The Parties further request that any remaining discovery in this action following an unsuccessful mediation or settlement be limited to the discovery pending at the time the Parties entered into this stipulation. The Parties stipulate that following the conclusion of an unsuccessful mediation or settlement conference, no additional depositions or written discovery is allowed other than the items expressly stated herein as pending and needing completion.

The Parties also stipulate to file notice of recommencement of discovery to the Court, confirming the commencement date of the resumption of discovery, if the mediation or settlement conference is unsuccessful.

C. REASONS WHY DISCOVERY WAS NOT COMPLETED

As shown herein, the Parties have expended considerable time, energy and costs litigating this action. Many depositions have been taken and extensive written discovery and production of documents from the Parties and third parties have been acquired. Based on the discovery to date, there is an opportunity for the Parties to engage in detailed, meaningful settlement discussions in this action in a good faith effort at resolution. Therefore, the Parties stipulate that the time is ripe for settlement discussions that may ultimately resolve this action. The remaining discovery stated herein has been previously and timely scheduled in anticipation of completion prior to the current discovery cut-off date of March 13, 2018. However, the Parties will incur significant fees and costs completing the discovery and then proceeding to file dispositive motions. These projected fees and costs could be directed toward meaningful settlement discussions that may resolve the action.

The Parties all represent that this extension is being made in good faith and not to needlessly delay the proceedings.

D. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION OF DISCOVERY

E. CURRENT TRIAL DATE

To the knowledge of the Parties, no trial date has been scheduled in this action.

ORDER

IT IS IT IS SO ORDERED.SO ORDERED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties must file a joint status report upon completion of the settlement conference or by June 11, 2018, whichever sooner.