United States District Court, D. Nevada
ALEX BLINCOE, an individual resident of Washoe County, State of Nevada; Plaintiff,
FREUD AMERICA, INC., a North Carolina Corporation; ROE ENTITIES 1 - 10; and DOES 1 - 10; Defendants.
WALLACE & MILLSAP, LLC F. McClure Wallace, Esq., Patrick
R. Millsap, Esq., Attorneys for Plaintiff.
& REES LLP Robert S. Larsen, Esq., David T. Gluth, II,
Esq., Attorneys for Defendant.
JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY (FIRST
ALEX BLINCOE (“Plaintiff”), by and through its
attorneys of record, Patrick Millsap, Esq. of Wallace &
Millsap, LLC, and Defendant FREUD AMERICA, INC.
(“Defendant”), by and through its attorneys of
record, Gordon Rees, LLP, hereby stipulate and agree to stay
discovery in order to complete mediation pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) and Local Rule 7-1 as follows:
is a products liability case where Plaintiff alleges that
metal cut-off wheel “exploded causing a piece of the
wheel to fly under Plaintiff's glasses into his left
eye.” (ECF No.1-2, ¶9). Plaintiff alleges he
suffered “severe injury to his left eye requiring
extensive operations and procedures to repair the
damage.” (ECF No.1-2, ¶ 10). Plaintiff alleges he
“will be permanently and legally blind in his left eye
for the entirety of this life.” (ECF No.1-2, ¶
parties have been actively engaging in discovery. Defendant
propounded written discovery on Plaintiff and responses are
currently due on or about August 16, 2018. Plaintiff has
undergone extensive medical treatment related to this
accident. On July 13, 2018, Defendant subpoenaed medical
records from Renown Hospital, Sierra Eye Associates, Northern
Nevada Medical Center, UC Davis Health Systems and Nevada Eye
Consultants. Defendant has received responses from some but
not all of the medical providers and is still gathering those
records. On July 25, 2018, Defendant sent a second subpoena
to Renown Hospital in order to inspect the foreign body
removed from the Plaintiff. Defendant noticed a Rule 34
inspection of the tool that was being used and intends to
inspect site where the accident happened. Defendant has also
noticed the deposition of Plaintiff and Plaintiff's wife
for August 28, 2018. Defendant intends to complete the
inspections and depositions.
Since the initial Rule 26 conference on June 1, 2018, the
parties continued to confer about possibility of resolution
including alternative dispute resolution with a private
mediator. On July 23, 2018, the parties agreed to mediate
after the completion of the above-referenced discovery. On
July 28, 2018, the parties agreed to mediate with retired
Judge Brent Adams. The mediation is scheduled for October 16,
2018. This is the first available date for all parties and
Joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order was entered on June
22, 2018. (ECF No. 9). The current deadline for initial
expert's reports is September 6, 2018. Id. The
current close of discovery is set for November 5, 2018.
parties agree that it is in the best interest of all parties
to await the completion of mediation before incurring the
time and expense of additional discovery beyond the pending
discovery identified in paragraph 2, including the expense
associated with disclosing experts and producing expert
reports. Additionally, because of the nature of this case, it
is anticipated that several experts will be needed including
liability and medical experts.
Federal district courts have “wide discretion in
controlling discovery.” Little v. City of Seattle, 863
F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). Pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 26(c), this Court may make any order which
justice requires “to protect a party or person from
annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden or
expense…” 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…”).
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.” The
parties agree that it would be burdensome to have the parties
incur the expense of time-consuming and costly discovery
prior to completing mediation which may cause impediment to
settlement. The Ninth Circuit has further noted that it is
firmly “committed to the rule that the law favors and
encourages compromise settlements.” United States
v. McInnes, 556 F.2d 436, 441 (9th Cir. 1977).
Staying any additional discovery beyond the pending discovery
identified in paragraph 2, in this case is consistent with
the spirit and intent of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. 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 if the case settles.
order to preserve the parties' resources, and to allow
meaningful mediation, the parties have agreed, subject to the
Court's approval, to stay any additional discovery beyond
the pending discovery identified in paragraph 2, including
the deadline to disclose initial expert and disclose reports,
until after the completion of the mediation on October 16,
2018. The parties further agree to vacate the current
discovery deadlines and stipulate that they will submit a
proposed discovery plan and scheduling order to reopen
discovery seven (7) days after the completion of the
mediation, if this case does not resolve.