Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sharda v. Sunrise Hospital and Medical Center, LLC

United States District Court, D. Nevada

March 27, 2017

NAVNEET SHARDA, M.D., an Individual, Plaintiff,
v.
SUNRISE HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF SUNRISE HOSPITAL; SUSAN REISINGER, an individual; DIPAK DESAI, an individual; NEVADA STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS; KATHERINE KEELEY, an individual; DOE Individuals I through X; and ROE CORPORATIONS and ORGANIZATIONS I through X, inclusive, Defendants.

          BAILEY 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.

          LAW OFFICES OF P. STERLING KERR, P. STERLING KERR, BRYAN NADDAFI, Attorneys for Plaintiff Navneet Sharda, M.D.

          STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY

          GEORGE FOLEY, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Pursuant 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:

         1. A “district court has wide discretion in controlling discovery.” Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988).

         2. 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).

         3. The 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.”).

         4. In 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.

         5. On 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.

         6. Briefing on the Motion is complete and the Parties await a decision from the Court.

         7. The 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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.