United States District Court, D. Nevada
MELISSA MARIE MCINTOSH, individual and natural parent and guardian of minor ANTHONY TYLER HARRIS; Plaintiffs,
CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT; PAT SKORKOWSKY, in his individual and official capacity; JOSEPH PETRIE, in his individual and official capacity; JAMIE GILBERT, in her individual and official capacity, ANTHONY DERBY, in his individual and official capacity; Defendants.
L. O'BRIEN, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 0983 CARLOS L. MCDADE,
ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 11205 Attorneys for Defendants
MARJORIE HAUF, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 008111 DAVID GLUTH, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 10596 Ganz & Hauf Attorneys for Plaintiffs
JOINT STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER TO STAY
DISCOVERY (FIRST REQUEST)
MELISSA MARIE MCINTOSH, individual and natural parent and
guardian of minor ANTHONY TYLER HARRIS
(“Plaintiffs”), and Defendants, CLARK COUNTY
SCHOOL DISTRICT, PAT SKORKOWSKY, JOSEPH PETRIE, JAMIE
GILBERT, ANTHONY DERBY (“Defendants”), by and
through their attorneys of record, hereby stipulate and agree
pursuant to Local Rule 7-1 as follows:
Pursuant to Local Rule 26-1(d), the Plaintiff shall initiate
“the Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) meeting within thirty (30) days
after the first defendant answers or otherwise
appears.” On February 22, 2017, Defendants appeared
when they filed their Motion to Dismiss Complaint (ECF No. 5)
(“Motion to Dismiss”).
Pursuant to Local Rule 26-1(d), “the parties shall
submit a stipulated discovery plan and scheduling
order” fourteen (14) days after the mandatory
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) conference.
parties held a conference on March 17, 2017 to discuss
discovery and case deadlines, and agreed to enter a
stipulation to stay discovery deadlines for the following
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5) seeks to
dismiss all the claims against Defendants for failure to
state a claim, application of qualified immunity, and/or the
Coverdell Act. Plaintiffs disputes Defendants' position
and filed their response in opposition alleging that their
claims are sufficiently plead and should not be dismissed.
(ECF No. 14). Alternatively, Plaintiffs requested leave to
amend their Complaint. Id.
parties agree it is in the best interest of all parties to
await the Court's ruling on the Motion to Dismiss (ECF
No. 5) prior to setting discovery deadlines and incurring the
time and expense of written discovery and depositions in the
event the Court dismisses the action in whole or in part.
Federal district courts have “wide discretion in
controlling discovery.” Little v. City of
Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). In
exercising this discretion, a district court may stay
discovery based on the filing of a motion that is
“potential dispositive of the entire case.”
Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D.
Nev. 2011). See also Turner Broadcasting Sys. v. Tracinda
Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997) (holding that
“[w]hether to grant a stay is within the discretion of
the Court…”); Ministerio Roca Solida v. U.S.
Dep 't of Fish & Wildlife, 288 F.R.D. 500, 506
(D. Nev. 2013) (“discovery should be stayed while
dispositive motions are pending only when there are no
factual issues in need of further immediate exploration, and
the issues before the Court are purely questions of
law…”) (internal quotations omitted). As such,
it is within the Court's power to grant a stay of
discovery at this time.
would be burdensome and unfair to have the parties incur the
expense of time-consuming and costly discovery because the
parties have agreed to a stay. Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure provides that the federal rules of practice
should be “construed and administered to secure the
just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every
action and proceeding.” (emphasis added). Thus, staying
discovery in this case is consistent with the spirit and
intent of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Further,
should the Court agree that Plaintiffs are entitled to amend
their Complaint, if necessary, then parties would need to
conduct discovery as to the amended pleadings. If a stay is
not granted, the parties will be required to engage in and
incur the costs of discovery which may not be necessary.
order to preserve the parties' resources, and to promote
judicial economy, the parties have agreed, subject to the
Court's approval, to stay discovery until this Court
rules on Defendants' pending Motion to Dismiss. The
parties further stipulate to delay submission of the
stipulated discovery plan and discovery order for fourteen
(14) days after this Court rules on Defendants' pending
Motion to Dismiss.