Filed: Jul. 05, 2018
Latest Update: Jul. 05, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS (Sixth Request) NANCY J. KOPPE , District Judge . Plaintiffs International Game Technology and IGT-UK Group Limited (collectively "Plaintiffs") and Defendant Illinois National Insurance Co. ("INIC"), by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate and request for good cause showing that the Court extend the deadline for the parties to file dispositive motions in this action by approximately sixty (60)
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS (Sixth Request) NANCY J. KOPPE , District Judge . Plaintiffs International Game Technology and IGT-UK Group Limited (collectively "Plaintiffs") and Defendant Illinois National Insurance Co. ("INIC"), by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate and request for good cause showing that the Court extend the deadline for the parties to file dispositive motions in this action by approximately sixty (60) d..
More
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
(Sixth Request)
NANCY J. KOPPE, District Judge.
Plaintiffs International Game Technology and IGT-UK Group Limited (collectively "Plaintiffs") and Defendant Illinois National Insurance Co. ("INIC"), by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate and request for good cause showing that the Court extend the deadline for the parties to file dispositive motions in this action by approximately sixty (60) days from Tuesday, July 10, 2018 to Monday, September 10, 2018. The parties also jointly request that the Court defer ruling on Plaintiffs' June 12, 2018 Motion to Compel Defendant to Produce Documents (Dkt. 79) pending the parties' settlement negotiations. If the parties are unable to reach a settlement, they will jointly advise the Court so that the motion may then be considered and ruled upon.
This is the first request by any party since the close of discovery to specifically extend the deadline to file dispositive motions and the sixth overall request by any party to amend any case management deadlines in this matter.
As required by Local Rule 26-4, the parties state as follows:
I. DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO DATE
• The parties conducted the Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) conference.
• The parties have exchanged initial and supplementary disclosures of documents and lists of witnesses, including the exchange of tens of thousands of pages of documents.
• Plaintiffs propounded multiple requests for production of documents, to which INIC responded.
• INIC propounded requests for production of documents and interrogatories on Plaintiffs, to which Plaintiffs have responded.
• Plaintiffs propounded multiple sets of interrogatories and requests for admission on INIC to which INIC has responded.
• INIC propounded requests for admission and additional requests for production of documents to which Plaintiffs responded.
• Plaintiffs have taken the depositions of INIC pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) as well as four current and former claim handlers, a claim supervisor, a former underwriter, and the Global Head of Financial Lines — Specialty Claims.
• INIC has taken the deposition of Plaintiffs pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) as well as two of Plaintiffs' employees, Senior Legal Counsel for IGT-UK and Plaintiffs' former risk manager.
• Subpoenas have been issued to multiple nonparties requesting the production of documents.
• The parties have disclosed expert witnesses and rebuttal experts.
• The parties have taken the depositions of multiple expert witnesses and Defendant's rebuttal expert.
• The parties have engaged in multiple meet and confer teleconferences and correspondence regarding the above discovery.
II. DISCOVERY TO BE COMPLETED
• Plaintiffs and Defendants are awaiting resolution from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on Plaintiffs' pending motion to enforce their subpoenas on Luigi Spadafora and Winget, Spadafora & Schwartzberg, LLP and Defendants cross-motion to quash the same. Consistent with the requests herein, the parties will also submit a request that the Southern District of New York defer further briefing or decision on that motion.
• Plaintiffs and Defendants are completing briefing on Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel pending before this Court. The parties request the Court defer ruling on that motion for the reasons stated herein.
III. LEGALSTANDARD.
The Court has broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation, including the timing of discovery. Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). Local Rule 26-4 provides that a request to extend discovery, "if made within 21 days of the subject deadline," requires a showing of "good cause." Good cause to extend a case management deadline exists "if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension." Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992).
IV. REASONS WHY DISPOSITIVE MOTION FILINGS CANNOT BE COMPLETED WITHIN THE CURRENT SCHEDULE
Plaintiffs and Defendant seek an approximately sixty (60) day extension of the deadline for filing dispositive motions primarily to allow for additional settlement negotiations to proceed. Over the past several months, the parties have engaged in good faith settlement negotiations concerning this action. An extension of the deadline to file dispositive motions will provide the parties with the necessary time to explore further settlement negotiations. Consequently, with good cause showing, the parties request that the Court extend the deadline to file dispositive motions by approximately sixty (60) days, as outlined below.
As noted above, the parties also jointly request that the Court defer ruling on Plaintiffs' June 12, 2018 Motion to Compel Defendant to Produce Documents (Dkt.79) pending the parties' settlement negotiations. If the parties are unable to reach a settlement, they will jointly advise the Court so that the motion may then be considered and ruled upon.
The parties agree that this stipulation and request is not made for the purpose of undue delay, but to allow for additional time to explore further settlement negotiations. The parties further agree that neither party will be prejudiced by an extension.
V. PROPOSED SCHEDULE
WHEREFORE, the parties respectfully request that this Court extend the case management deadlines in this matter as follows:
EVENT CURRENT DEADLINE REVISED DEADLINE
File Dispositive Motions July 10, 2018 September 10, 2018
Joint Proposed Pretrial Order August 7, 2018, or 30 days October 8, 2018, or 30
after dispositive motions are days after dispositive
resolved motions are resolved
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
