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.

McIntosh v. Clark County School District

United States District Court, D. Nevada

April 3, 2017

MELISSA MARIE MCINTOSH, individual and natural parent and guardian of minor ANTHONY TYLER HARRIS; Plaintiffs,
v.
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.

          DANIEL 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)

         Plaintiffs, 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:

         1. 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”).

         2. 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.

         3. The 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 reasons:

         4. 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.

         5. The 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.

         6. 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.

         7. It 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.

         8. In 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.

         ORDER

         IT IS ...


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.