National Labor Relations Board v. Red Rock Resorts Inc.

1 Joshua D. Nadreau (admitted pro hac vice) Fisher & Phillips, LLP 2 200 State Street, 7th Floor 3 Boston, Massachusetts 02109 T: 617-722-0044 4 E: jnadreau@fisherphillips.com [5] Mark J. Ricciardi 6 Nevada Bar No. 3141 Fisher & Phillips, LLP 7 300 S Fourth Street Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 [8] T: 702-252-3131 9 E: mricciardi@fisherphillips.com 10 Attorneys for Respondents [11] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 13 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Case No.: 2:21-cv-01986-RFB-NJK [14] Applicant, RESPONDENTS’ UNOPPOSED [15] MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING v. 16 ORDER RED ROCK RESORTS, INC. et al., 17 (FIRST REQUEST) Respondents. [19] Respondents respectfully move this Court for an Order modifying the current Scheduling [20] Order (ECF 37) to extend the time for responding to Applicant’s Renewed Application for Order [21] Requiring Compliance with Subpoenas Duces Tecum Pursuant to Section 11(2) of the National [22] 23 Labor Relations Act, As Amended [ 29 U.S.C. § 161 (2)] by fourteen days from the present 24 deadline of June 10, 2022 until June 24, 2022 pursuant to Local Rule IA 6-1(a). As good cause [25] for Respondents’ motion, Respondents state as follows: [26] 1. This is an action to enforce thirteen subpoenas duces tecum issued in an [27] underlying unfair labor practice proceeding before an Administrative Law Judge of the National [28] 1 Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The subpoenas themselves each include 317 separately 2 numbered paragraphs with more than 1100 subparts. [3] 2. The NLRB commenced this proceeding on October 29, 2021. Following the [4] submission of Respondent’s Opposition, the NLRB’s Reply, and Respondents’ Sur-Reply, the [5] 6 Court denied NLRB’s petition without prejudice on February 28, 2022 (ECF 34). 7 3. No activity occurred in this case between the Court’s denial of the petition and a [8] subsequent Order issued April 7, 2022 which directed the parties to file either “(1) a joint [9] proposed schedule for motion practice and briefing, (2) a joint status report, or (3) dismissal [10] papers.” (ECF 35). [11] 12 4. The parties filed a joint status report on April 21, 2022 but did not propose a 13 briefing schedule. (ECF 36). On April 22, 2022, the Court set the following briefing schedule: [14] a. Petitioner’s Renewed Request for Relief May 20, 2022 [15] b. Respondents’ Response June 10, 2022 [16] c. Petitioner’s Reply June 20, 2022 [17] 18 (ECF 37).1 19 5. On May 20, 2022, Petitioner’s filed their request for relief, styled as Renewed [20] Application for Order Requiring Compliance with Subpoenas Duces Tecum Pursuant to Section [21] 11(2) of the National Labor Relations Act, As Amended [ 29 U.S.C. § 161 (2)] (the “Application). [22] The Application and supporting document total 991 pages of material. Within Petitioner’s [23] 24 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Petitioner addresses 14 groupings of specified subpoena [27] 1 The Court entered the same schedule in a related proceeding, Local Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas, ex rel. 28 National Labor Relations Board v. Station Casinos, LLC, Civ. A. 2:22-cv-00100-RFB-NJK (the “Related Case”). See Docket No. 21 (April 22, 2022). 1 requests it is asking the Court to enforce. In total, these 14 groups represent 86 separate requests 2 in the challenged subpoenas, each with multiple subparts. [3] 6. Responding to the Application will involve review of each of the 86 subpoena [4] requests and their subparts, review of whether the information requested is “relevant and material [6] to the investigation[,]”2 a determination as to whether the request is “unreasonable because it is 7 overbroad or unduly burdensome[,]”3 and review of Respondents’ production to date to [8] determine what, if anything within Respondents’ possession, custody, and control has yet to be [9] produced. This review will involve the undersigned working with Respondents’ counsel in the [10] underlying NLRB matter intensely over a period of several days, if not weeks. Given the press [11] 12 of commitments in other matters, high school graduation ceremonies, and previously planned 13 vacations, the time to confer is already limited, especially considering Respondents will be 14 responding to a similar filing in the Related Case.4 [15] 7. Good cause exists for the following requested modification to the Court’s April [16] 21, 2022 Scheduling Order, because the additional time will permit Respondents to effectively [17] 18 marshal a response to the Application and hopefully narrow the issues in dispute: 19 a. Respondents’ Response June 24, 2022 [20] b. Petitioner’s Reply July 5, 2022 [21] 8. The Petitioner does not oppose the requested modification of the scheduling [22] order. [23] 24 9. A proposed order is submitted herewith. [26] 27 2 NLRB v. North Bay Plumbing, Inc., 102 F.3d 1005, 1007 (9th Cir. 1996). [3] Id. [28] 4 Respondents note that a similar motion will be filed in the Related Case. 1 WHEREFORE, Respondents respectfully request that the Court grant this unopposed motion 2 and modify the Scheduling Order as requested herein. [3] Respectfully submitted, [4] FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP [5] 6 /s/ Joshua D. Nadreau Joshua D. Nadreau (admitted pro hac vice) 7 Fisher & Phillips, LLP 200 State Street, 7th Floor [8] Boston, Massachusetts 02109 [9] Mark J. Ricciardi (Bar #3141) 10 Fisher & Phillips, LLP 300 S Fourth Street [11] Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 [12] Attorneys for Respondents [1] CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE [2] This is to certify that on the May 25, 2022, the undersigned electronically filed the [3] foregoing Unopposed Motion to Modify Scheduling Order with the U.S. District Court, District [4] of Nevada, and a copy was electronically transmitted from the court to the email addresses on [5] file for: [6] 7 Marinelly Maldonado, Esq. Sara S. Demirok, Esq. 8 Kyler A. Scheid, Esq. [9] /s/ Joshua D. Nadreau 10 Joshua D. Nadreau (admitted pro hac vice) [28] 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3 Case No.: 2:21-cv-01986-RFB-NJK [4] Applicant, ORDER GRANTING 5 RESPONDENTS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO MODIFY RED ROCK RESORTS, INC. et al., SCHEDULING ORDER 7 Respondents. [8] 9 Pending before the Court is Respondents’ Unopposed Motion to Modify the Scheduling 10) Order in this matter (Docket No. 39). The Court finds that good cause exists for the requested 1] modification for the reasons stated therein. [12] 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondents’ Unopposed Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order is GRANTED. Respondents are ordered to submit their response to the 15 | Applicant’s Renewed Application (ECF 38) by June 24, 2022, and the Applicant may submit 16 any reply thereto by July 5, 2022. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE GRANTED. [19] 20 IT IS SO ORDERED: [21] 22 fo aS fe 23 Nancy J. □□ opp 4 United States Magistrate Judge 25 Dated: May 26, 2022.