Diamond Resorts International, Inc. v. Reed Hein & Associates, LLC

JOSEPH P. GARIN, ESQ.

2 Nevada Bar No. 6653 MEGAN H. HUMMEL, ESQ.

3 Nevada Bar No. 12404 9900 Covington Cross Drive, Suite 120 Las Vegas, Nevada 89144 (702) 382-1500 - Telephone (702) 382-1512 - Facsimile [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant Schroeter Goldmark & Bender, P.S.

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA DIAMOND RESORTS U.S. COLLECTION CASE NO.: 2:17-cv-03007-APG-VCF DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, 13 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO Plaintiff, EXTEND DISCOVERY vs. (Fifth Request) REED HEIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC d/b/a/ TIMESHARE EXIT TEAM, a Washington limited liability company; BRANDON REED, an individual and citizen of the State of Washington; TREVOR HEIN, an individual and citizen of Canada; THOMAS PARENTEAU, an individual and citizen of the State of Washington; HAPPY HOUR MEDIA GROUP, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; MITCHELL R. SUSSMAN & ASSOCIATES, an individual and citizen of the State of California; SCHROETER, GOLDMARK & BENDER, P.S., a Washington professional services corporation; and KEN B. PRIVETT, ESQ., a citizen of the State of Oklahoma, Defendants.

25 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY (Fifth Request) 26 Pursuant to Local Rules 6-1 and 7-1, Plaintiff Diamond Resorts US Collection Development, LLC (“Diamond” or “Plaintiff”), and Defendants Reed Hein & Associates, LLC d/b/a Timeshare Exit Team (“TET”), Brandon Reed (“Reed”), Trevor Hein (“Hein”), Reed Sussman, Esq. d/b/a The Law Offices of Mitchell Reed Sussman & Associates (“Sussman”), and Schroeter Goldmark & Bender, P.S. (“SGB”) (at times collectively the “Defendants”), by and through their respective attorneys of record, hereby agree and stipulate, in accordance with LR 26-4, as follows: 6 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the Parties that the deadline to complete discovery be extended as set forth herein. This is the Parties’ fifth request to extend the discovery deadline in this matter.

9 A. Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order 10 On November 18, 2020, the Court entered an Order [ECF No. 350] granting the parties’ Joint Stipulation to Extend Discovery (Fourth Request) which set the following dates: 13 1. Initial Experts: July 14, 2021 14 2. Rebuttal Experts: September 13, 2021 15 3. Discovery Cut-Off: November 3, 2021 16 4. Dispositive Motions: December 30, 2021 17 5. Submission of Pretrial Order: January 18, 2022 B. Discovery Completed/Remaining Discovery 19 Pursuant to the requirements of LR6-1 and LR26-4, the parties provide the Court with the following information in support of their stipulation to extend discovery in this matter.

22 1. Discovery Completed 23 a) Each of the Parties has served the required Rule 26(a) Initial Disclosures.

24 Plaintiff has served nine supplements; TET has served 33 supplements, HHMG has served six supplements; SGB has served ten supplements; and Sussman has served seven supplements.

27 /// /// for Production of Documents and three sets of Interrogatories on TET, Reed, Hein, and Parenteau. TET, Reed, Hein, and Parenteau responded to all Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. TET, Reed, Hein, and Parenteau have served Plaintiff with an aggregate of five (5) sets of Requests for Production of Documents, three (3) sets of Requests for Admission, and one set of Interrogatories. Plaintiff responded to this written discovery and has no responses outstanding at this time.

8 c) Plaintiff has served two sets of Requests for Production of Documents on HHMG and two sets of Interrogatories. HHMG responded to this written discovery and has no responses outstanding at this time. HHMG has also propounded one set of Requests for Admissions on Plaintiff and one set of Requests for Production of Documents. Plaintiff responded to this written discovery and has no responses outstanding at this time.

14 d) Plaintiff has served two sets of Interrogatories on SGB and four sets of Requests for Production of Documents. SGB responded to this written discovery and has no responses pending at this time. SGB also served Plaintiff with four sets of Requests for Production of Documents, one set of Interrogatories, and one set of Requests for Admission. Plaintiff responded to this written discovery and has no responses outstanding at this time.

20 e) Plaintiff has served Sussman with one set of Interrogatories and two sets of Requests for Production of Documents. Sussman responded to this written discovery and has no response outstanding. Sussman served Plaintiff with two sets of Interrogatories and two sets of Requests for Production of Documents. Plaintiff responded to this written discovery.

25 f) The Parties have served numerous third-party document production subpoenas, including subpoenas to Better Business Bureau, Yelp, Inc., The Lampo Group, LLC, Lampo Licensing, LLC, Timeshare Closing Services, Inc., Ardent Law Group, PLLC, Silva & Massi, and the American Resort Development Association.

2 h) The Parties have begun taking the Rule 31 depositions of 330 non-party timeshare owners (the “Identified Owners”). To date, approximately 140 of the Rule 31 depositions have been completed, with several more scheduled throughout the coming weeks.

6 i) Several Parties have disputed the sufficiency of written discovery responses and are in the process of meeting and conferring to resolve disputes prior to court intervention.

9 j) Plaintiff filed motions to compel the production of the defendants’ documents and the Parties awaiting resolution on Plaintiff’s Objections to Magistrate’s Judge’s Orders thereon (ECF No. 342 and clarificatory orders, ECF No. 353 and ECF No. 355).

13 k) Plaintiff has deposed TET’s 30(b)(6) witnesses for the limited purpose of addressing issues which arose during the Rule 31 depositions.

15 l) SGB has served notice to take by videotape the deposition of the Rule 30(b)(6) corporate designee of Plaintiff. A Motion for Protective Order thereon has been filed by Plaintiff relative to this deposition and is currently set for May 17, 2021.

18 m) Plaintiff and SGB have agreed that SGB’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition will be scheduled in late August 2021. A deposition notice is forthcoming.

20 n) SGB has served deposition subpoenas on three additional witnesses for Plaintiff: Maria Kalber, Eva Esteban, and David LaGassa. Plaintiff accepted service of these subpoenas and depositions are currently set for June 22, 2021, June 29, 2021, and June 30, 2021.

24 As outlined above, the Parties have exchanged (and are continuing to exchange) hundreds of thousands of documents encompassing millions of pages related to the timeshare owner contracts and relationships at issue in this case, and are awaiting resolutions on pending discovery motions.

28 /// 2 a) Completion of the Rule 31 depositions of the Identified Owners.

3 b) Depositions of all Parties’ 30(b)(6) corporate witnesses and other, relevant non-party witnesses (including the Identified Owners who were not deposed pursuant to Rule 31). The Parties have attempted to schedule these depositions on numerous occasions, but encountered numerous delays due to various restrictions and concerns imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Parties are working together to coordinate the scheduling of all remaining depositions. Five depositions are currently scheduled to move forward beginning June 22, 2021. The Parties are contemplating video- depositions to expedite scheduling, but given the magnitude of the exhibits and the number of defendants involved, all Parties prefer to conduct in-person depositions if feasible.

13 c) Initial and rebuttal expert disclosures.

14 d) Supplemental document disclosures. The Parties are currently in dispute over the production of several categories of documents. The production of these documents is largely contingent on the adjudication of pending or forthcoming motions to compel.

18 The Parties reserve the right to participate in any other discovery allowed by the federal or local rules.

20 C. Reason Why Discovery Has Not Been Completed.

21 Although the parties have worked cooperatively and diligently to complete discovery, discovery has been delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which has led to various closures and travel restrictions. As this Court is aware, this case also involves voluminous and complex document discovery, both as between the Parties and as to third parties. Plaintiff and TET have collectively disclosed well over 1,000,000 pages of documents. TET has also recently disclosed over 500,000 audio recordings with a collective recording time of over four (4) years. Defendants SGB and Sussman have also disclosed a significant amount of documents. The sheer volume of documents and collection, processing, and production of information, has taken and continues to take a substantial period of time.

4 Complicating the production have been the Parties’ ongoing disputes over various discovery responses and document productions. These disputes have led to dozens of meet and confers, as well as several rounds of motions to compel, which led to the Court’s Order of November 4, 2020 (ECF 342) and clarificatory orders thereon (ECF 353 and ECF 355). Currently, the parties are awaiting the Court’s ruling on Plaintiff’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Order (ECF 342, ECF 353 and ECF 355), to guide them in further discovery efforts.

11 The parties are also awaiting the Court’s ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order Regarding SGB’s FRCP 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice to Plaintiff.

13 The Parties also do not anticipate that document production, Rule 31 depositions, party depositions, the 50 agreed upon live, non-party depositions (25 per side), or expert reports can be completed within the current time frame.

16 The Parties therefore respectfully request to extend the discovery deadline by approximately 90 days from the current discovery deadlines.

18 The Parties have entered into the agreement in good faith and not for purposes of delay. This extension is not intended to delay the progress of this case but will instead allow the Parties to complete discovery and/or to further explore the possibility of settlement upon completion of discovery.

22 /// /// /// /// /// /// /// 2 Event Current Deadline Extended Number of Days Deadline Initial Experts July 14, 2021 October 12, 2021 90 Days 4 Rebuttal September 13, 2021 December 13, 2021 91 Days (90 days Experts will land on a 5 Sunday) Discovery November 3, 2021 February 1, 2022 90 Days 6 Cut-Off 7 Dispositive December 20, 2021 March 21, 2022 91 Days (90 days Motions will land on a 8 Sunday) Pretrial Order January 18, 2022 April 18, 2022 90 Days 10 In accordance with Paragraph 13 of the existing Scheduling Order and LR 26-4, this Stipulation is submitted more than twenty-one (21) days before any of the deadlines that the Parties seek to extend through this stipulation.

13 Dated this 14th day of May, 2021. Dated this 14th day of May, 2021.

14 GREENSPOON MARDER LLP THE LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL REED SUSSMAN & ASSOCIATES /s/ Phillip A. Silvestri /s/ Mitchell Reed Sussman ________________________________ ________________________________ Phillip A. Silvestri, Esq. (NV Bar No. 11276) Mitchell Reed Sussman, Esq.

17 3993 Howard Hughes Pkwy., Ste. 400 (Pro Hac Vice) Las Vegas, NV 89169 California Bar No. 75107 Leslie Benjamin, Esq.

Richard W. Epstein, Esq. (Pro Hac Vice) (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 1053 S. Palm Canyon Drive Jeffrey Backman, Esq. Palm Springs, California 92264 (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Michelle E. Durieux, Esq.

21 (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Dated this 17th day of May, 2021.

200 East Broward Blvd., Ste. 1800 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 ALDRICH LAW FIRM, LTD. and /s/ John P. Aldrich COOPER LEVENSON, P.A. ________________________________ Kimberly Maxson-Rushton, Esq. John P. Aldrich, Esq. (Bar No. 6877) NV Bar No. 5065 7866 West Sahara Avenue Gregory A. Kraemer, Esq. Las Vegas, Nevada 89117 NV Bar No. 1091 1835 Village Center Circle Attorneys for Defendant Las Vegas, NV 89134 Mitchell Reed Sussman, Esq. dba The Law Offices of Mitchell Reed Sussman Attorneys for Plaintiffs & Associates || Dated this 14" day of May, 2021. Dated this 14" day of May, 2021.

2 || GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LIPSON NEILSON P.C.

LLP /s/ Dione C. Wrenn /s/ Megan H. Thongkham Robert S. Larsen, Esq. (NV Bar No. 7785) Joseph P. Garin, Esq. (NV Bar No. 6653) David T. Gluth Il, Esq. (NV Bar No. 10596) Megan H. Thongkham, Esq (NV Bar N Dione C. Wrenn, Esq. (NV Bar No. 13285) 12404 300 South 4" Street, Suite 1550 9900 Covington Cross Drive, Suite 120 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Las Vegas, Nevada 89144 Attorneys for Defendants Attorneys for Defendant | Reed Hein & associates, LLC dba Schroeter Goldmark & Bender, P.S.

Timeshare Exit Team, Brandon Reed, | Trevor Hein, Thomas Parenteau, and 40 Happy Hour Media Group 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. £44 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE g a . 517-2021 as 15 DATED: ee eZ 24g 16 g48 17 a 4g Page 8 of 8