STATUS REPORT; STIPULATED DISCOVERY PLAN and PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER (in response to Order (Doc. No. 60).

CAM FERENBACH, District Judge.

Plaintiff ABC INDUSTRIAL LAUNDRY, LLC, by its attorneys, Steven J. Parsons of LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN J. PARSONS, and Joseph N. Mott and Scott Lundy of REMPFER MOTT LUNDY, PLLC1; Defendant FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, by its attorneys, James P.C. Silvestri and Brian Goldman of PYA-rr SILVESTRI, and Defendant NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, by its attorneys, Christine Emanuelson and Whitney Wilcher of HINES HAMPTON, LLP, hereby submit this Status Report and Stipulated Discovery Plan and Proposed Scheduling Order pursuant to the Court's Order of December 21, 2017, regarding the parties' Status Check (Doc. No. 60).

STATUS REPORT

The parties have met, conferred and agree that at present, the following discovery remains outstanding:

Depositions:

(1) ABC's principals and employees, Ran Brisman, Avi Cohen, and Jim Smail, as well as Fed. R. Civ. P., 30(b)(6) witnesses;

(2) ABC's former principals and employees, Moshe Levy, Yaakov "Kobi" Levy, and Yuda Levy;

(3) Rudi Moors, Christeyns' CEO (to be completed);

(4) Claims persons of each Defendant's claims operation, as well as Fed. R. Civ. P., 30(b)(6) witnesses of each Defendant;

(5) Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc.;

(6) Textile Solutions, LLC,

(7) Wynn Las Vegas, LLC;

(8) Brown & Brown Northwest;

(9) CHEM-BAC Laboratories, Inc;

(10) CR Systems Consulting;

(11) Frank Campagna, CPA; and

(11) The various experts as designated by the parties.

Written Discovery:

The parties anticipate additional written discovery will follow the depositions.

Status of the Companion Case

Attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit 1 is an Order of the Hon. Richard Scotti, District Judge, upon the Stipulation to Extend Discovery Deadlines, Amend the Scheduling Order, and Reset the Trial in the associated Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada case ABC Industrial Laundry, LLC v. Christeyns Laundry Technology, LLC; docketed in that Court as Case No. A-15-720810-C. The attached exhibit shows similar deadlines now set by that Court, as are requested in this Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order.

1. DISCOVERY PLAN:

A. DISCOVERY CUT-OFF DATE: The plan is in general accordance with LR 26-1(e)(1), and the parties request two hundred seventy (270) days to conduct percipient witness discovery measured from January 18, 2018, the date of this Status Report. The last proposed day of discovery of percipient witnesses shall be Monday, October 15, 2018.

C. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(2) DISCLOSURES (EXPERTS): Disclosure of experts shall proceed according to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) except that:

i. The disclosure of experts and expert reports shall occur on Tuesday, July 17, 2018, which is ninety (90) days before the discovery cut-off date;

ii. The disclosure of rebuttal experts shall occur on Thursday, August 16, 2018, which is thirty (30) days after the disclosure of experts.

2. AMENDMENT OFTHE PLEADINGS AND ADDING PARTIES: The parties shall have until Tuesday, July 17, 2018, to file any motion to amend the pleadings or to add parties. This is ninety (90) days before the discovery cut-off, which is in accordance with LR 26-1(e)(2).

3. INTERIM STATUS REPORTS: The parties shall file their interim status report required by LR 26-3 by Thursday, August 16, 2018, which is sixty (60) days before discovery cut-off.

4. DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS: The parties shall have until Wednesday, November 14, 2018, to file dispositive motions, which is thirty (30) days after the close of discovery.

5. SETTLEMENT: The likelihood of settlement cannot be presently established.

6. PRETRIAL ORDER: The pretrial order shall be filed Friday, December 14, 2018, which is thirty (30) days after the date set for filing dispositive motions in this case. This deadline is suspended if a dispositive motion is timely filed.

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

EXHIBIT "1"

DISTRICT COURT

CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA

Plaintiff/Counter-defendant, ABC INDUSTRIAL LAUNDRY, LLC dba UNIVERSAL LAUNDRY and SUPPLY ("Plaintiff"), by its counsel, Steven J. Parsons of LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN J. PARSONS, and Defendant/Counter-claimant, CHRISTEYNS LAUNDRY TECHNOLOGY, LLC ("Defendant"), by its counsel, William P. Volk of KOLESAR & LEATHAM, hereby submit this Stipulation to Extend Discovery Deadlines, amend the Scheduling Order, and reset the Trial:

A. DISCOVERY WHICH HAS BEEN COMPLETED

B. DISCOVERY WHICH REMAINS TO BE CONDUCTED

C. CURRENT DISCOVERY SCHEDULE

The current Scheduling Order provides for the following deadlines:

D. REASONS WHY THE PROPOSED DISCOVERY IS NOT ABLE TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF THE CURRENT DISCOVERY DEADLINE

The parties' counsel have worked well and ably with each other to complete discovery in this case. Despite their diligent efforts to complete discovery within the current deadlines, the parties need additional time to completely and properly prepare their cases for trial.

As the Court may be aware, the parties in this matter are working closely with the parties in a parallel case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, captioned ABC Industrial Laundry, LLC, dba Universal Laundry and Supply v. Federal Insurance Company, et Al., as Case No. 2:15-cv-869-RFB-(VCF) (the "federal court matter") to minimize discovery overlap and costs and to work together to litigate the cases as efficiently as possible. The federal court matter arises from the same set of facts as the instant case, but deals with Plaintiff's first-party insurance coverage claims. Much of the discovery in the two cases overlaps.

Specifically, the parties in both cases need to complete the deposition of Christeyns' Rule 30(b)(6) designees and other specific Christeyns employees; ABC's Rule 30(b)(6) designees and other specific ABC employees; Wynn Resort employees; and several technical experts. The cost of completing this overlapping discovery separately in the two matters would be extraordinary, and as a result, the parties in both cases have been working together closely to plan joint deposition schedules.

However, the specifics of ongoing depositions have not yet been agreed to, as coordinating the schedules of nearly a dozen essential people for these depositions has been exceptionally difficult. The participants span the country and have varied and demanding leadtimes to commit to the further discovery.1

To date, the parties have started taking the deposition of Christeyns' Rule 30(b)(6) designee. This deposition took place over two days in Boston, MA, in mid-August. The parties have agreed to continue Christeyns' 30(b)(6) deposition for one further day at a to-bedetermined date, time, and location. The depositions for Plaintiff's 30(b)(6) designee(s), as well as the depositions of Plaintiff's principals, are likely in early 2018 in Las Vegas.

Additionally, the parties are engaged in extensive third-party discovery. One of these third-parties objected to discovery requests, it has now retained counsel, and the issue may require motions to compel to resolve. Some of these third-parties are not located in Nevada and therefore have required letters rogatory before discovery requests can be served. Many of these third-parties will require depositions, and scheduling those depositions will require the time and coordination of multiple parties. These third-parties include, but are not limited to, former employees of the Plaintiff who were involved in Plaintiffs operations during the time of issue and who no longer reside in Nevada but are important to both Plaintiffs and Defendant's cases.

Discovery was also delayed recently due to a number of discovery disputes that, the parties have attempted to resolve amongst themselves. The parties are hopeful they will be able to continue to work through these discovery disputes without having to resort to motion practice.2

The parties believe that an additional one hundred and eighty (180) days will accommodate all interested parties sufficiently to conclude the discovery that remains in this matter.

E. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING DISCOVERY

The parties anticipate the Court setting the Trial for early 2019.

Based on the foregoing, the parties respectfully request that the Court extend the discovery deadlines, amend the scheduling Order, and set the trial as recommended above for the good cause shown.

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.