United States District Court, D. Nevada
Patrick B. Griffin, Esq. Brian C. Buescher, Esq. KUTAK ROCK
LLP James D. Boyle, Esq. Hannah S. Goodwin, Esq. HOLLEY
DRIGGS WALCH FINE WRAY PUZEY & THOMPSON Attorneys for
Plaintiff Meridian OHC Partners, LP.
Lai, Esq. WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP
Michael P. McCloskey, Esq. WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN
& DICKER LLP Attorneys for Defendant Rudolf Steiner
Foundation, Inc., d/b/a RSF Social Finance.
Fugazzi, Esq. V.R. Bohman, Esq. SNELL & WILMER, LLP Anna
Erickson White, Esq. Robert W. May, Esq. MORRISON &
FOERSTER, LLP Attorneys for Defendant Michael A. Davis.
STIPULATION, JOINT MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
STAYING PROCEEDINGS PENDING RESOLUTION OF THE PENDING MOTIONS
to Local Rules IA 6-2 and 7-1, Plaintiff Meridian OHC
Partners, LP (“Meridian”) and Defendants Michael
A. Davis (“Davis”) and Rudolf Steiner Foundation,
Inc., d/b/a RSF Social Finance (“RSF”)
(collectively, the “Parties”) hereby stipulate to
and respectfully move the Court for a stay of all proceedings
and deadlines in this matter, including discovery, in light
of the applicability of the statutory stay of discovery under
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (15 U.S.C.
§ 78u-4) to the claims asserted in this action. In
support of this Stipulation, the Parties state the following:
1. On or about April 14, 2017, Plaintiff filed its Third
Amended Complaint and Jury Demand in the above-captioned
matter (Doc. 75).
2. On or about May 18, 2017, Davis filed a Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 78).
3. On or about May 18, 2017, RSF filed a Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 79).
4. On or about June 15, 2017, Meridian filed its briefs in
opposition to the Motions to Dismiss filed by both Davis and
RSF (Docs. 81 and 82, respectively).
5. On or about June 29, 2017, Davis and RSF filed their reply
briefs in support of their Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 94 and
6. On or about September 8, 2017, the Parties filed a
Stipulation and Order to Extend Expert Deadlines (Doc. 95),
for the reason that the Parties were hoping to avoid
unnecessary costs and expenses associated with engaging in
discovery, in particular the extensive costs involved in
retaining expert witnesses, before the pleadings are settled
in this matter and would therefore inform the scope of
discovery. The Stipulation was granted by the Court on
September 11, 2017 (Doc. 98).
7. On or about October 6, 2017, the Parties filed a
Stipulation and Order to Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines
[ECF No. 980] (Doc. 100), for the reason that the Parties
continued to hope to avoid unnecessary costs and expenses
associated with engaging in discovery and retaining expert
witnesses pending the Court's decision on the two fully
briefed motions to dismiss. The Stipulation was granted by
the Court on October 11, 2017 (Doc. 101).
8. The Parties agree that the mandatory statutory stay of
discovery of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, 15
U.S.C.A. § 78u-4, applies to the claims asserted in this
case because this action is a private action arising under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
9. The Parties stipulate and agree that all discovery in this
matter should be stayed during the pendency of the motions to
dismiss in accordance with 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(3)(B)
(B) Stay of discovery In any private action arising under
this chapter, all discovery and other proceedings shall be
stayed during the pendency of any motion to dismiss, unless
the court finds upon the motion of any party that
particularized discovery is necessary ...