United States District Court, D. Nevada
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS: Joshua Buck and Mark Thierman
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS: Richard Dreitzer and C. Wayne Howle
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE WILLIAM G. COBB, U.S. MAGISTRATE
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
OF PROCEEDINGS: Discovery Status Conference
a.m. Court adjourns.
court holds today's conference to address the
parties' Proposed Second Amended Discovery Plan and
Scheduling Order [Special Scheduling Review Requested]”
(ECF No. 102) and the competing positions held by the
Plaintiffs and Defendant State of Nevada on behalf of the
Department of Corrections (NDOC) with regard to the matter of
court first inquires about the accuracy of the list of
attorneys who have made an appearance in this case on behalf
of the Defendant. Mr. Dreitzer states he will review the list
captioned on the docket and make any corrections necessary to
clarify the record of Defendant's attorneys of record.
Mr. Howle states he is only “covering” the
Attorney General's Office and will not be counsel of
discussing the subject of today's conference, the court
orders that the parties' stipulation for enlargement of
time to respond to Defendant's motion to strike (ECF No.
100) is GRANTED nunc pro tunc and that the
parties' stipulation for enlargement of time to respond
to Defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 101) is
GRANTED nunc pro tunc.
court next discusses with counsel its preliminary evaluation
of the case and reminds counsel that its evaluation is not a
prediction of how District Judge Du will rule on
Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' First
Amended Complaint (ECF No. 99). The court states, at this
time, it is operating under the interpretation that the
Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 95) will
survive Defendant's motion to dismiss. Therefore, a stay
of the case is not necessary and limited discovery is
appropriate given the assertions are made with more
specificity within the amended complaint.
of the court's position, the court and counsel have
extensive discussion as to what discovery is appropriate to
undertake at this time. Plaintiffs' position is that
discovery is limited to experts and all other discovery has
been completed as to the named Plaintiffs and as to a
representative sampling of the opt-in Plaintiffs. Defendant
takes the position that by reasons of Plaintiffs' First
Amended Complaint they are entitled to discovery as to named
Plaintiffs and representative Plaintiffs. Defendant seeks to
depose a certain number of Plaintiffs and also propound
court stresses the importance of recently amended Fed. P.
Civ. P. 1 which emphasizes the importance of the
“inexpensive determination” of lawsuits.
Accordingly, discovery is hereby limited to a representative
number of Plaintiffs-not all Plaintiffs who have opted into
this action will be subject to discovery requests. The court
sets forth the parameters of discovery as follows:
• Defendant is allowed to depose five (5) named
Plaintiffs. Depositions are to not exceed two 2 hours.
Deadline to complete depositions is Thursday, 10/5/2017;
however, the court encourages the depositions be completed
before the stated deadline.
• Defendant is allowed to re-depose five (5) opt-in
Plaintiffs, preferably current state employees who have
already been deposed (a list of names are identified at ECF
No. 102, pg. 9) . Depositions are to not exceed one (1) hour.
Deadline to complete depositions is Thursday,