United States District Court, D. Nevada
KENNEDY, JOHN R. BAILEY JOSHUA M. DICKEY PAUL C. WILLIAMS
Attorneys for Defendants Sunrise Hospital and Medical Center,
LLC, including its Board of Trustees, Susan Reisinger, M.D.
and Katherine Keeley, M.D., D.D.S.
OFFICES OF P. STERLING KERR, P. STERLING KERR, BRYAN NADDAFI,
Attorneys for Plaintiff Navneet Sharda, M.D.
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY
FOLEY, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
to LR IA 6-1, LR 7-1, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(d), Plaintiff Navneet Sharda, M.D.
(“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Sunrise Hospital and
Medical Center, LLC, including its Board of Trustees
(“Sunrise Hospital”), Susan Reisinger, M.D.
(“Dr. Reisinger”), and Katherine Kelley, M.D.,
D.D.S. (“Dr. Keeley”) (collectively, the
“Sunrise Defendants”), through their respective
undersigned counsel, hereby submit this proposed Stipulation
and Order to Stay Discovery:
“district court has wide discretion in controlling
discovery.” Little v. City of Seattle, 863
F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988).
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), the Court
“may, for good cause, ” issue a protective order
to stay discovery. A court also has discretion to stay or
limit discovery during the pendency of a motion that is
likely to dispose of a case. Tradebay, LLC v. eBay,
Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011).
goal of Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is
paramount in evaluating whether a stay is warranted. Rule 1
provides that the Rules of Civil Procedure shall “be
construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and
inexpensive determination of every action.”
Id. at 602 (internal quotation marks omitted);
accord Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79
(2009) (“Rule 8 marks a notable and generous departure
from the hyper-technical, code-pleading regime of a prior
era, but it does not unlock the doors of discovery for a
plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions.”).
evaluating whether to stay discovery pending a dispositive
motion, Courts consider: (1) whether the pending motion is
“potentially dispositive of the entire case or at least
dispositive of the issue on which discovery is sought;”
and (2) whether the pending “motion can be decided
without additional discovery.” See Tradebay,
LLC, 278 F.R.D. at 602.
December 30, 2016, the Sunrise Defendants filed a Motion to
Dismiss (See ECF No. 35) (the “Motion”) pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Motion, if
granted in its entirety, would be dispositive of the case.
Briefing on the Motion is complete and the Parties await a
decision from the Court.
Parties believe that good cause exists to stay
discovery pending a decision on the Motion because:
(a) While the Parties have differing views on the merits of
the Motion, the Parties agree that the Motion is
“potentially dispositive of the entire case” or
that the Court's ruling on the Motion could narrow the
scope of discovery. See Tradebay, LLC, 278 F.R.D. At
602. In other words, the Motion would make discovery
unnecessary if granted in its entirety or would have a
substantial impact on the scope of discovery if granted in
part. For example, antitrust claims require significant
discovery unique to such claims. If discovery is not stayed,
the parties would be required to engage in such unique
discovery before knowing whether such discovery is necessary.
(b) The Parties agree that discovery is unnecessary to decide
the Motion. See id.
(c) The Parties agree that a stay of discovery will promote
the goals of Rule 1 “to secure the just, speedy, and
inexpensive determination of ...