United States District Court, D. Nevada
D. FORD Attorney General D. RANDALL GILMER, Bar No. 14001
Chief Deputy Attorney General DOUGLAS R. RANDS, Bar No. 3572
Senior Deputy Attorney General Office of the Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants Governor Brian Sandoval, Adam Paul
Laxalt, Barbara K. Cegavske, the State of Nevada, and the
State of Nevada Board of Examiners
D. FORD By: D. Randall Gilmer D. RANDALL GILMER DOUGLAS R.
RANDS Senior Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for the State
GALLIHER LAW FIRM By: Jeffrey L. Galliher (with permission)
JEFFREY L. GALLIHER, ESQ. GEORGE J. KUNZ, ESQ. Attorneys for
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY PENDING THIS
COURT'S DECISION ON THE STATE DEFENDANTS' PENDING
MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF NO. 36)
hereby stipulated between Plaintiff, Duke Thomas Nguyen, by
and through counsel, The Galliher Law Firm, Jeffrey L.
Galliher, Esq., Keith E. Galliher, Esq. and George J. Kunz,
P.C., Esq., Attorneys for the Plaintiff, and Defendants,
Brian Sandoval, Adam Paul Laxalt, Barbara K. Cegavske, the
State of Nevada and the State of Nevada Board of Examiners
(State Defendants), by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford,
Attorney General of the State of Nevada, D. Randall Gilmer,
Chief Deputy Attorney General, and Douglas R. Rands, Senior
Deputy Attorney General (collectively referred to as
“the Parties”), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 29 and Local Rule 26-1, to stay discovery in this
matter pending a decision on the Defendants' Motion to
Stipulation to stay is being provided to the Court due to
this Court's order dated March 11, 2019 which requires
Plaintiff to comply with LR 26-1 within 30 days after the
first defendant answers or otherwise appears. On March 19,
2019 the State Defendants, in lieu of answering, filed a
Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6). See ECF No. 36. In addition to
various other legal reasons for seeking dismissal, the State
Defendants seek dismissal based on Eleventh Amendment
immunity as well as under the doctrine of qualified immunity.
Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1) “authorizes the court
to stay discovery.” Rosenstein v. Clark County
School Dist., 2014 WL 2835074 at *2 (D. Nev. June 23,
2014). “Common situations in which a court may
determine that staying discovery pending a ruling on a
dispositive motion occur when dispositive motions raise
issues of jurisdiction, venue, or immunity.”
Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D.
Nev. 2011); see also Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S.
511, 526-27 (1985); Harlow v Fitzgerald, 547 U.S.
800, 819 (1982); Dunn v. Castro, 621 F.3d 1196,
(9th Cir. 2010) (noting the importance of deciding
immunity issues as soon as possible so that governmental
entities and employees may “avoid the burdens of
‘such pretrial matters as discovery'” when
possible). Wherefore, given the pending Motion to Dismiss
raising issues of immunity, the Parties respectfully state
that a stay of discovery pending this Court's decision on
the Motion to Dismiss is warranted. Accordingly, based on the
mutual agreement of the Parties as reflected in this
Stipulation, the Parties respectfully request discovery be
stayed pending the Court's decision on the Motion to
agreed and stipulated to by the Parties on March 27, 2019:
GRANTING STIPULATION TO STAY DISCOVERY
the Parties having stipulated to stay discovery pending this
Court's ruling on the State Defendants Motion to Dismiss,
it is hereby ordered that the Parties' Stipulation to
stay discovery is GRANTED.
FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall have 30 days from
decision of the pending motion to dismiss in which to meet
and confer and submit a proposed discovery plan and
scheduling order in the event any claim survives.
 Defendant PTS has yet to file an
answer or otherwise ...