Thomson v. Russell Investment Management LLC

1 Paul S. Padda NV Bar No. 10417 PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC 4560 South Decatur Blvd., Suite 300 Las Vegas, NV 89103 Tel: 702.366.1888 [email protected] Paul J. Lukas, MN Bar No. 22084X* [email protected] Brock J. Specht, MN Bar No. 0388343* [email protected] Benjamin J. Bauer, MN Bar No. 0398853* [email protected] NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4700 IDS Center S 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 *admitted pro hac vice ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF AND THE PROPOSED CLASS 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA DANNY WANEK and JUAN DUARTE, as representatives of a class of similarly situated Case No. 2:21-cv-00961-CDS-BNW persons, and on behalf of the Caesars Entertainment Corporation Savings & Retirement Plan, JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND CASE DEADLINES 22 Plaintiffs, (FIRST REQUEST FOR EXTENSION) 23 v. RUSSELL INVESTMENTS TRUST COMPANY, CAESARS HOLDINGS, INC., THE PLAN INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, and THE 401(K) PLAN COMMITTEE.

Defendants.

1 Plaintiffs Danny Wanek and Juan Duarte (“Plaintiffs”), as representatives of a proposed class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the Caesars Entertainment Corporation Savings & Retirement Plan, and Defendants Russell Investments Trust Company, Caesars Holdings, Inc., the Plan Investment Committee, and the 401(k) Plan Committee (“Defendants”) (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby jointly request that the Court extend the deadlines in the Court’s Amended Scheduling Order (ECF No. 115) as specified below: 7 WHEREAS, the Court issued the original Scheduling Order in this case on October 12, 2021 (ECF No. 63), while Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss were pending; 9 WHEREAS, the original Scheduling Order listed placeholder dates to be adjusted based on the timing of the Court’s decision on Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss; 11 WHEREAS, the Court issued an Amended Scheduling Order on April 20, 2023 (ECF No. 115) listing specific dates for each deadline; 13 WHEREAS, after the Court issued the Amended Scheduling Order, Defendants began the process of identifying custodians, collecting additional potentially responsive materials and electronically stored information (“ESI”), and engaging vendors to assist with processing and reviewing the materials and ESI. Due to the volume of additional materials and ESI that needed to be collected, the process of identifying and collecting materials and ESI potentially responsive to Plaintiffs’ requests for production of documents has taken longer than anticipated; 19 WHEREAS, the Parties have already produced tens of thousands of documents and document productions are still ongoing; 21 WHEREAS, the Parties have conducted depositions of representatives from each party and are in the process of scheduling additional depositions; 23 WHEREAS, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint adding two additional Named Plaintiffs and reinstating their claim for co-fiduciary liability against the Caesars Defendants remains pending; 26 WHEREAS, this motion is not the result of unnecessary delay or a lack of diligence in conducting discovery by any party; 28 WHEREAS, the current deadline to complete fact discovery is February 7, 2024; 1 WHEREAS, the Parties request to extend the fact discovery deadline and, as a result, each of the affected deadlines below, by roughly 90 days (accounting for holidays, weekends, or other scheduling conflicts); 4 WHEREAS, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) requires a showing of good cause and the judge’s consent in order to extend case deadlines. Pursuant to Ninth Circuit caselaw, “[t]he proper procedure, when additional time for any purpose is needed, is to present to the Court a timely request for an extension before the time fixed has expired[.]” Shields v. Baker, 2020 WL 8991812, at *2 (D. Nev. May 5, 2020) (quotation omitted). “Additionally, courts have inherent power to control their dockets.” Id. (citing Hamilton v. Copper & Steel Corp. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 898 F.2d 10 1428, 1429 (9th Cir. 1990)); see also Nelson v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Illinois, 2011 WL 12848, at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 4, 2011) (exercising discretion to extend deadlines despite a party’s lack of diligence).

12 Courts generally find good cause where parties must review thousands of documents before the close of discovery and where other motions filed during the discovery period remain pending. See, e.g., Internet Sports Int’l, Ltd., v. Amelco USA, LLC, 2023 WL 6540193, at *1 (D. Nev. Oct. 6, 2023) (granting request for extension where “thousands of documents” would take “significant time to review”); Hampton v. Nevada, 2021 WL 3573640, at *2 (D. Nev. July 29, 2021) (granting motion to extend deadlines where motion to amend the complaint remained pending); Cervantes v. Scott, 2020 WL 1816294, at *2 (D. Nev. Apr. 9, 2020) (granting request to extend deadlines where a motion for reconsideration remained pending).

20 WHEREAS, the parties have demonstrated that there is good cause to reasonably extend the below deadlines. The voluminous document productions in this case require time to gather, review, and produce. The requested extension will allow the Parties time to review the documents before completing additional depositions and allow the Parties additional time after the holidays to coordinate the schedules of the multiple parties required to conduct each deposition. Further, the discovery period will account for any delays in the production of responsive materials and ESI and allow the Parties to continue to diligently pursue discovery. Finally, extending the discovery period will allow the Court additional time to rule on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Fourth Amended Complaint and additional time for the Parties to conduct depositions of the additional Named Plaintiffs if the motion is granted.

5 WHEREAS, counsel for the Parties have conferred and agreed to the following deadlines: Event Proposed Date Fact Discovery Deadline 7 May 7, 2024 Deadline for Plaintiffs to serve their expert 8 June 7, 2024 reports Deadline Defendants to serve their expert July 19, 2024 reports Deadline for Plaintiffs to serve their rebuttal August 16, 2024 expert reports Deadline for expert discovery September 6, 2024 Deadline for summary judgment motions September 16, 2024 WHEREAS, this request is not made for purposes of delay; and WHEREAS, this is the first request for an extension of time for the subject deadlines; IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the Parties will abide by the following deadlines: Event Proposed Date Fact Discovery Deadline May 7, 2024 Deadline for Plaintiffs to serve their expert June 7, 2024 reports Deadline Defendants to serve their expert reports July 19, 2024 Deadline for Plaintiffs to serve their rebuttal 22 August 16, 2024 expert reports Deadline for expert discovery September 6, 2024 Deadline for summary judgment motions September 16, 2024 NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP MAYER BROWN LLP /s/ Benjamin J. Bauer /s/ D. Matthew Moscon Paul J. Lukas, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice) D. Matthew Moscon (admitted pro hac vice) Brock J. Specht, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice) 201 South Main Street, Suite 1100 Benjamin J. Bauer, Esq. (admitted pro hac Salt Lake City, UT 84111 vice) Telephone: (801) 907-2703 4700 IDS Center [email protected] 80 S. 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 MAYER BROWN LLP Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Nancy G. Ross (admitted pro hac vice) South Wacker Drive PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC Chicago, IL 60606 Paul S. Padda, Esq. Telephone: (312) 782-0600 4560 South Decatur Blvd., Suite 300 [email protected] Las Vegas, NV 89103 Telephone: (702) 366-1888 LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.

11 Attorneys for Plaintiff Patrick H. Hicks, Esq. Bar. No. 004632 Diana G. Dickinson, Esq. Bar No. 13477 12 3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 300 Las Vegas, Nevada 89169-5937 Telephone: (702) 862-8800 14 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant Caesars Holdings, 16 Inc., the Plan Investment Committee, and the 401(k) Plan Committee 18 MILBANK LLP /s/ Robert C. Hora 19 Sean M. Murphy, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice) Robert C. Hora, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice) 21 Joseph J. Kammerman, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice) 22 Emily E. Werkmann, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice) 23 55 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 530-5000 PARSONS, BEHLE & LATIMER 26 Rew R. Goodenow, Esq. NSBN 3722 Michael R. Kealy, Esq. NSBN 971 27 50 West Liberty Street, Suite 750 Reno, NV 89501 I Attorneys for Defendant Russell Investments 2 Trust Company | DATED: _ 1/2/2024 IT IS SO ORDERED.

LK gr La Wee 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE &K