11 NICHOLAS J. BOOS (SBN 16047) [email protected] 22 MAYNARD COOPER & GALE LLP Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1450 33 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 646-4700 44 Facsimile: (205) 254-1999 55 Attorneys for Defendant LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY 66 Designation for Service Only: 77 Kristol Bradley Ginapp, (SBN 8468) Holley Driggs 88 300 S. 4th Street, Suite 1600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 99 [email protected] 1100 CHRISTIAN N. GRIFFIN, ESQ. (SBN 10601) HALE INJURY LAW 1111 1661 W. Horizon Ridge Parkway, Suite 200 Henderson, Nevada 89012 1122 Phone: (702) 736-5800 Fax: (701) 534-4655 1133 [email protected] 1144 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 1155 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1166 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 1177 1188 BRIAN DOLCE; et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-1434-RFB-NJK 1199 Plaintiff, JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (RENEWED SECOND 2200 v. REQUEST) 2211 LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., 2222 Defendants. 2233 2244 JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 2255 Pursuant to Rule 16(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 26-3, 2266 Defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (“Defendant”) and Plaintiffs Brian Dolce, et al. 2277 (collectively “Plaintiffs”) (collectively, Defendant and Plaintiffs are referred to as “the Parties”), 1 No. 17. This is the Parties’ renewed second motion to extend the deadlines at issue. Docket Nos. 2 14, 17, 18. In support thereof, the Parties state as follows: 3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 4 Though they have engaged in discovery to date, the Parties cannot reasonably meet the 5 current deadlines. This case requires the disclosure of sensitive information, obtaining documents 6 from third parties, expert evaluations, and a number of in-person discovery matters. The Parties 7 have been and continue to diligently work through these issues but expert and fact discovery 8 cannot be completed in the currently set timeframe. The Parties respectfully submit that good 9 cause exists to extend the deadlines set by the Court by 60 days. 10 I. LEGAL STANDARDS 11 “A request to extend deadlines in the Court’s scheduling order must be supported by a 12 showing of good cause for the extension.” Victor v. Walmart, Inc., No. 220CV01591JCMNJK, 13

, at *2 (D. Nev. Apr. 8, 2021). The “good cause” standard applies under both 14 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) and Local Rule 26-3. Id. at n. 3. “‘Good cause’ is a non- 15 rigorous standard . . . .” Choate v. Nevada Att’y Gen., No. 216CV00813RFBGWF,

230048, at *1 (D. Nev. Jan. 22, 2021) (quoting Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc.,

, 17 1259 (9th Cir. 2010)). “Good cause to extend a discovery deadline exists ‘if it cannot reasonably 18 be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” Victor,

, at *2 19 (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992)). “The good 20 cause inquiry focuses primarily on the movant’s diligence.” Fields v. Williams, No. 21 217CV01725JADNJK,

, at *1 (D. Nev. Apr. 3, 2019) (citing Coleman v. 22 Quaker Oats Co.,

, 1294–95 (9th Cir. 2000)); see also Choate,

, 23 at *1. 24 Local Rule 26-3 requires that a motion or stipulation to extend deadlines also include: 25 (a) A statement specifying the discovery completed; 26 (b) A specific description of the discovery that remains to be completed; 27 (c) The reasons why the deadline was not satisfied or the remaining discovery was not 1 (d) A proposed schedule for completing all remaining discovery. 2 II. ARGUMENT 3 A. Discovery Completed 4 The Parties have completed the following discovery: 5  Exchange of written initial disclosures (October 20, 2022); 6  Exchange of documents identified in initial disclosures (more than 3,000 pages of 7 documents) (Plaintiff: October 26, 2022) (Defendant: November 18, 2022); 8  Defendant has propounded Requests for Production to each of the four Plaintiffs 9 (November 11, 2022); 10  Defendant has propounded Interrogatories to each of the four Plaintiffs (November 11, 11 2022); 12  Defendant has issued subpoenas to 13 medical providers identified in Plaintiffs’ initial 13 disclosures (November 17, 2022) (Defendant received document production in 14 response to subpoenas on November 30, 2022, December 1, 2022, December 6, 2022, 15 December 7, 2022, December 8, 2022, December 12, 2022, December 13, 2022, 16 December 20, 2022, December 27, 2022, and December 31, 2022). 17  Plaintiffs have responded to Defendant’s discovery requests (December 6, 2022). 18  Defendant has engaged experts. 19  Defendant’s expert has conducted the independent medical examination of Plaintiff 20 Mary Dolce (February 3, 2023). 21 B. Discovery That Remains To Be Completed 22 Despite the Parties’ diligence, the remaining items of discovery still need to be completed: 23  Receipt of the totality of subpoenaed medical records (Defendant has responded to 24 inquiries regarding production from subpoenaed parties, including on December 20, 25 2022 and January 3, 2023; 26  Independent medical examinations of Plaintiffs other than Mary Dolce (Defendant 27 communicated with Plaintiff’s counsel regarding scheduling of IMEs for the Plaintiffs 1 2023; January 20, 2023); 2  Exchange of expert reports; 3  Depositions of experts; 4  Depositions of Plaintiffs; 5  Depositions of Defendant’s employees and representative(s) (The Parties 6 communicated about such depositions on December 6, 2022, January 6, 2022, and 7 February 3, 2023; 8  Depositions of Plaintiffs’ medical providers; 9 C. Reasons An Extension Is Needed 10 Despite the significant discovery that has been conducted—including initial disclosures, 11 document production, written discovery, third party subpoenas, and negotiation of various 12 discovery issues—the Parties respectfully submit that they cannot reasonably conduct the 13 remaining discovery in order meet the current deadlines. “The discovery process in theory should 14 be cooperative and largely unsupervised by the district court.” ProCare Hospice of Nevada, LLC 15 v. OneCare Hospice, LLC,

, 176 (D. Nev. 2021) (quoting Sali v. Corona Reg. 16 Med. Ctr.,

(9th Cir. 2018)). The Parties have been negotiating a number of 17 discovery issues to avoid disputes that will render Court action necessary and respectfully submit 18 that these negotiations constitute good cause to briefly extend the deadlines as requested. 19 For example, the Parties have been negotiating an agreeable time for Plaintiffs in this 20 action to have independent medical examinations performed by Defendant’s Expert. Plaintiff 21 Mary Dolce’s independent medical examination has been conducted. However, because Plaintiff 22 Brian Dolce has recently started new employment, he has not been available to be physically 23 examined at a time mutually agreeable for himself and Defendant’s expert. The Parties anticipate 24 that, with an appropriate extension, they can cooperatively schedule and proceed with Mr. 25 Dolce’s independent medical examination. 26 Additionally, the Parties have been attempting to negotiate resolution of a potential 27 dispute regarding the examination of the other two Plaintiffs in this action. Without waiving their 1] || discussed—that may render the examinations of these Plaintiffs unnecessary. An appropriate □□ extension would facilitate this negotiation. Even if the Parties are unable to reach an agreement, 3 || they believe that an extension will allow time to narrow the issue of the dispute if it is necessary 4|| to present the dispute to the Court. 5 Finally, the Parties are negotiating regarding Plaintiffs’ request to conduct a deposition of 6 || an attomey that provided services to Defendant. The Parties have disagreements about such a 7 || deposition and its scope. However, the Parties, again without waiving their rights, are meeting g || and conferring regarding Plaintiffs’ request and are hopeful that they can find a solution that 9 || would avoid a contentious and difficult deposition. 10 The Parties are not acting dilatorily; they have been and are diligently pursuing discovery 11 || cooperating amicably, seeking to accommodate scheduling concerns, and attempting to reach 12 || resolution of potential discovery disputes. For example, it has taken a significant amount of time 13 || and effort to obtain production from the numerous medical providers at issue here. Defendant 14 || acted quickly, issuing these subpoenas in November of 2022. Yet, the responses to these 15 || subpoenas has continued into January of 2023. Logically, subpoena production of medical 16 || records would precede the medical examination and depositions of the Plaintiffs. The Parties hav: || communicated frequently regarding the scheduling of medical examinations and depositions and 18 || this discovery has already begun. The Parties respectfully submit that the potential resolution of 19 || discovery disputes through the cooperation outlined above, and the discovery that remains despite 29 || the Parties’ diligence, constitutes good cause to extend the deadlines. The Parties believe that a 6( 21 || day extension of the deadlines will give them sufficient time to address the needed issues and 22 || proceed with remaining discovery and motion practice. 23 D. Proposed Schedule 24 The Parties propose the following revised schedule: 05 06 2 2

1 Dispositive Motion Deadline June 29, 2023 August 28, 2023 2 Pretrial Order Deadline July 29, 2023 September 27, 2023 4 | TI. CONCLUSION 5 For the reasons stated above, the Parties respectfully request the Court enter an order 6 || extending the deadlines set by the Scheduling Order (Docket No. 14) by 60 days. IT IS SO ORDERED:

NANCY\Js KOPPE 10 United Statés Magistrate Judge Feb 14, 2023 Dated: *°OMUAatY 12 13 14 || Dated: February 13, 2023 MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, LLP 16 /s/ Nicholas J. Boos 17 By: NICHOLAS J. BOOS Attorneys for Defendant 18 LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY 19 20 21 Dated: February 13, 2023 HALE INJURY LAW 23 /s/ Christian N. Griffin By: CHRISTIAN N. GRIFFIN Attorneys for Plaintiffs 25 26 27 28