1 || F. Christopher Austin (NSB# 6559) [email protected] 2 || WEIDE & MILLER, LTD. 10655 Park Run Drive, Suite 100 3 Las Vegas, NV 89144 Telephone: (702) 382-4804 || Fax: (702) 382-4805 5 || Attorneys for Defendants 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 V SHRED, LLC, Case No.: 2:21-cv-01344-JCM-VCF 10 11 Plaintiff, v. SFRRULAFION-AND-ORDER TO EXTENI 12 THE DEADLINES RELATED TO EXPER’ || GRAVITY TRANSFORMATION LLC, a DISCLOSURES Texas company, and GEORGE PERELSHTEYN, an individual, [THIRD REQUEST]

1s Defendants. 16 Plaintiff V SHRED, LLC (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants GRAVITY TRANSFORMATION 17 || LLC and GEORGE PERELSHTEYN (collbetively “Defendants” and together with Plaintiff, 18 || “Parties”), by and through their attorneys, ot pursuant to LR JA 6-1 and LR II 26-3, submit the 19 || following Stipulation to Extend the Deadlines Related to Expert Disclosures by sixty (60) days, 20 || and specifically to extend the deadline for be disclosures from October 31, 2022 to and 21 || including December 30, 2022, and to concomitantly extend all subsequent discovery and pretrial 22 || deadlines. This is the third request to extend time to complete discovery, as requests to extend 23 || discovery were granted by the Court on August 18, 2021 and July 15, 2022. In support of this 24 || Stipulation, the Parties state the following. 25 1. Statement Regarding Status of Discovery Completed. 26 Pursuant to the Order of the Court granting the Parties’ Stipulation to Extend Discovery 27 || Deadlines, dated July 18, 2022, the Parties bifurcated factual and expert discovery in this matter. 28 & MILLER, LTD. — | po 14g □□□□

1 || Doc #26. Over 14 thousand records were produced during fact discovery and Defendant’s two | principals were deposed. 3 Upon the expiration of the deadline for factual discovery (September 30, 2022) and in part as aresult of the factual discovery identified and produced thereby, the Parties recommenced an 5 || exploration of potential settlement. However, to assess and pursue settlement, the Parties need to 6 || further examine the discovery produced and that is the subject of Plaintiff's requests for || clarification and production, particularly discovery regarding the financial records of Defendant 8 || Gravity. Both Parties believe settlement largely hinges on resolving disputes regarding such || financial records and have discussed involving third-party expertise to assist in that regard if 10 || necessary. 11 2. Statement of Discovery to be Completed. 12 Despite the Parties desire to engage in good faith settlement discussions as discussed 13 || above, their ability to engage in such an effort to understand and assess the discovery in this matter || in furtherance of exploring settlement is hampered, if not outright precluded, by the looming 15 || October 31, 2022, expert disclosure deadline. This case involves not only complex 16 || copyrightability issues for which the Parties have engaged experts but will also require expert 17 |) reports on, among other subjects, weight and fitness training and forensic accounting. To that end 18 || the Parties have identified and retained experts in such areas. However, because the subject matter 19 || and scope of the expert reports sought in this matter are significant, extensive, and necessarily 20 || rely on discovery that the Parties have not fully vetted, and which are the subject of further 21 || clarification and supplementation, even if the Parties were not seeking to engage in settlement 22 || discussions, there would not be enough time for such experts to assess such discovery to prepare 23 || the required reports by the present deadline without prejudice to one or both of the Parties. 24 3. Reason for the Requested Extension. 25 As set forth herein, there is “good cause,” pursuant to LR IT 26-3, for the present request. 26 || “Good cause’ is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across procedural and 27 28 PARK ORG fea-1482

1 || statutory contexts.”' It generally involves a case-by-case assessment of whether there is some 2 || good reason for the delay or requested extension in the absence of bad faith and prejudice to the 3 |] non-moving party.” 4 Such is the case here. The Parties desire the requested extension to resolve complex 5 || outstanding discovery issues to pursue settlement in good faith and thereby avoid the costs and 6 || expenses of a complex copyright infringement and revocation action, if possible, which they 7 || otherwise could not do given the approaching expert disclosure deadline. Further, as attested to 8 || by the signature of the undersigned counsel for Defendant, settlement discussions and discovery 9 || issues related to the same were delayed by the necessity of Defense counsel to take multi-day trips 10 || out of state the last weeks of September and the first week of October to attend to his family in 11 |} connection with the decline, passing, and funeral services (which he oversaw) of his □□□□□□□ 12 |} Neither party will be unduly prejudiced by the requested extension which is not intended to cause 13 || any undue delay in this proceeding. 14 4, Proposed Schedule for Remaining Discovery. Based on the foregoing, the 15 || Parties hereby stipulate to extend the discovery and related deadlines in this matter as follows: 16 a. The expert disclosure deadline shall be Friday, December 30, 2022; 17 b. The rebuttal expert disclosure deadline shall be Monday, January 30, 2023, 18 || thirty-one (31) days after the deadline to disclose initial experts, in accordance with LR 26- 19 || 1(b)(3), as the 30" day falls on a Sunday; 20 C. The Parties shall have until Wednesday, March 1, 2023, to take the 21 || depositions of the experts, thirty (30) days after the deadline to disclose rebuttal experts; 22 d. The dispositive motion deadline shall be Friday, March 31, 2023, thirty 23 || (30) days after the deadline to take depositions of the experts; and 24 25 || ———____ 26 |] | Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2010) (discussing “good cause” in the context of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)). 27 * Id. at 1109-1110. 28 & MILLER, LTD. RUN DRIVE fea-1482

1 e. The Pretrial Order deadline shall be Monday, May 1, 2023, thirty-one (3 1) || days after the dispositive motion deadline, in accordance with LR 26-1(b)(5), as the 30" day falls 3 |} ona Sunday. 4 Dated October 17, 2022. 5 MCDONALD CARANO LLP WEIDE & MILLER, LTD. 6 /s/ Rory T. Kay /s/ F. Christopher Austin 7 Rory T. Kay (NSB 12416) Christopher Austin (NSB 6559) Tara U. Teegarden (NSB 15344) Jing Zhao (NSB 11487) 8 2300 West Sahara Avenue, Suite 1200 10655 Park Run Drive, Suite 100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89102 Las Vegas, NV 89144 9 [email protected] [email protected] 10 [email protected] [email protected] 11 Attorneys for Defendants IPLA, LLP 12 /s/ Benjamin S. White Benjamin S. White 14 Pro Hac Vice Application Granted 4445 Eastgate Mall, Suite 200 15 San Diego, CA 92121 [email protected] 16 17 Attorneys for Plaintiff 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED; 20 GF 2 3 LE 21 — TED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 | / / DATED: [ Z, AO 7 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 & MILLER, LTD. oa 4g