STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND JOINT PRE-TRIAL ORDER

(FIRST REQUEST)

CARL W. HOFFMAN, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff National Casualty Company (hereinafter "NCC"), by and through its counsel, Eric S.Powers of Selman Breitman LLP, and defendant Philip Michael Bouchard (hereinafter "Bouchard"), by and through his counsel, Jordan P. Schnitzer of The Schnitzer Law Firm, hereby submit the following stipulation to extend the joint pre-trial order deadline in the above — entitled action by thirty (30) days. This is the first request for enlargement of the joint pre-trial order deadline.

I.

INTRODUCTION

This is an insurance declaratory relief action. This action arises from a car accident between Defendant Efren Sotelo ("Sotelo") and Bouchard. Sotelo is a former employee of his father's business, Cool Air. Sotelo was terminated from employment and required to return the Cool Air keys, gas card, uniform and other company property in his possession. Effective that date, Sotelo was no longer authorized to operate any Cool Air vehicles. Unbeknownst to Sotelo's father or Cool Air, Sotelo had made unauthorized copies of some Cool Air keys, including a key to Cool Air's 2005 Chevrolet 1500 pickup truck (the "Chevy").

On December 12, 2014, NCC contends Sotelo stole the Chevy using his copied key. His father filed a police report and asked the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department to prosecute Sotelo for the theft. On December 17, 2014, a criminal case was opened; and on February 15, 2015, Sotelo pled guilty to the charge of theft and was sentenced. Sotelo has admitted the above facts and confirms that he did not have permission to use the Chevy on December 12, 2014. See Exhibit A attached to NCC's Complaint on file herein.

Sotelo allegedly caused an accident by rear ending a vehicle driven by Philip Bouchard. On July 27, 2016, Bouchard filed a complaint for negligence against Efren, Juan, and Cool Air. That action is pending, and is styled Bouchard v. Efren Isaac Sotelo, et al., in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County District Court Case No. A-16-740711-C (the "Underlying Action"). NCC is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Bouchard seeks damages in excess of $75,000 in that action.

NCC is defending its insureds, Juan Sotelo (Sotelo's father) and Cool Air, in that action.

II.

DISCOVERY COMPLETED BY THE PARTIES

The parties have completed the following discovery to date:

The Parties held a telephonic 26(f) Conference on or around December 1, 2017.

II.

DISCOVERY WHICH REMAINS TO BE COMPLETED

None. The parties have completed discovery in this matter. Defendants filed on Motion to Compel on June 12, 2018 [Doc. 36]. After hearing on the Motion to Compel, the Magistrate Court entered an Order Denying the same and issuing sanctions against Defendants [Doc. 46]. Defendants filed an Objection/Appeal of the Magistrate Judge Order on July 30,2018[Doc 47]. Further discovery could be warranted depending on the outcome of Defendants' objection.

Plaintiff filed its Motion for Summary Judgment on July 12, 2018 Doc. 44] that will soon be fully briefed and pending this Court's decision. The parties seek a thirty (30) day extension to further attempt to resolve these pending issues related to discovery and complete briefing on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.

III.

REASONS WHY SUCH REMAINING DISCOVERY CANNOT BE COMPLETED WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT OF THE EXISTING DEADLINE

The parties seek only to extend the Pre-Trial Order deadline in this case. Specifically, Defendants filed a Motion to Compel which was denied by this Court. The Motion to Compel has been appealed to the district court. The parties seek to attempt to resolve the pending Appeal of the Motion to Compel or finalize briefing upon the same prior to filing pre-trial order in this matter. Moreover, the parties would like to complete briefing on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment that was timely filed before this Court prior to submitting the same.

Accordingly, the parties seek a thirty (30) day extension of time to file the Joint Pre-Trial Order in this case. Good cause and excusable neglect exist for extending the time to file the Joint Pre-Trial Order because the parties could not have anticipated completing briefing on Defendants Objection/Appeal of the Court's decision on its Motion to Compel. A thirty (30) day extension will not cause undue delay or prejudice to either party. This is the parties' first request for an extension and this request is being submitted in good faith.

IV.

PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR PRE-TRIAL ORDER DEADLINE

Based on the foregoing, the parties hereby stipulate and agree that the following Pre-Trial Order deadline be substituted for the corresponding deadline contained in the Joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order:

WHEREFORE, the Parties hereby stipulate and agree to modify the Scheduling Order in order to extend the Pre-Trial Order deadline as stated above.

This report is signed in accordance with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

IT IS SO ORDERED.