United States District Court, D. Nevada
MILAGROS MARTINEZ-PARIS and L.R., a minor by and through his Guardian Ad Litem MILAGROS MARTINEZ-PARIS, Plaintiff,
CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, KASEY GLASS, MARK CONNORS, ALLISON POKORNIK and DOES 1-50, Defendants.
ORDER JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE [ECF NO. 102];
MOTION TO COMPEL [ECF NO. 75]; MOTION TO SEAL [ECF NO. 76];
MOTION TO COMPEL [ECF NO. 81]; MOTION TO SEAL [ECF NO. 87];
MOTION TO COMPEL [ECF 88]; MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER [ECF
FERENBACH, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the Court is the parties' joint stipulation to continue.
(ECF No. 102). The Court grants the stipulation in part. In
the stipulation, the parties ask the Court to vacate the
December 17, 2019 hearing regarding the plaintiffs'
motions to compel (ECF Nos. 75, 81, and 88) and motions to
seal in support of their motions to compel (ECF Nos. 76 and
87). (ECF No. 104 at 2). The parties ask that the Court still
hear the CCSD defendant's motion for a protective order,
which has not been fully briefed. (ECF No. 95). The parties
indicate that plaintiffs intend to file a motion for leave to
file an amended complaint, and that the parties agree that a
hearing on plaintiffs' discovery motions should be
vacated, “in the interest of judicial economy and to
reduce unnecessary fees and costs[.]” (ECF No. 104 at
2). The parties also ask the Court to vacate the expert and
lay discovery cutoff dates. (Id. at 3).
Rule of Civil Procedure 1 states that the Rules “should
be construed, administered, and employed by the court and
the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive
determination of every action[.]” (emphasis added). The
underscored words above illustrate the 2015 amendment to Rule
1. In Chief Justice Roberts's 2015 year-end report, he
commented regarding the amendment to Rule 1 that,
“[t]he new passage highlights the point that
lawyers-though representing adverse parties-have an
affirmative duty to work together, and with the court, to
achieve prompt and efficient resolutions of disputes.”
See Chief Justice Roberts, 2015 Year-End Report on the
Federal Judiciary at 6, Supreme Court of the United States.
commenced in this case on May 31, 2019. (ECF No. 34 at 2). On
June 24, 2019, the parties indicated in a stipulation that
they intended to work together regarding sharing discovery
from a related case and to limit discovery, within certain
parameters, “to prevent delay and reduce unnecessary
costs[.]” (ECF No. 33 at 2). The early promise of
cooperation between the parties appears to have fallen aside
given the number of discovery disputes the parties have
brought before the Court. Because plaintiffs intend to seek
leave to amend its complaint, the scope of discovery
plaintiffs seek may change. The Court thus denies
plaintiffs' motions to compel and related motions to seal
without prejudice. (ECF Nos. 75, 76, 81, 87 and 88). The
Court directs the Clerk of Court to leave the unredacted
documents (ECF No. 77 and 89) sealed until further order of
the Court. The parties are directed to work together and
meet-and-confer again to narrow the issues prior to
plaintiffs' filing new motion(s) to compel. The parties
are also directed to meet-and-confer to narrow the issues
raised in the defendant's protective order (ECF No. 95),
and defendant CCSD is directed to discuss which issues, if
any, were resolved through the meet and confer process in its
upcoming reply in support of its motion. The hearing set for
defendant CCSD's motion for a protective order (ECF No.
95) on December 17, 2019 is vacated and reset to January 15,
2020 at 10:00 am.
discovery deadlines set in the Court's amended scheduling
order (ECF No. 73 at 4) are all vacated, apart from the
hearing regarding discovery set for January 15, 2020 at 10:00
am. (Id.). At the January 15, 2020 hearing, the
Court will hear representations from the parties consistent
with the Court's order setting the hearing. (Id.
at 5). The Court will also hear arguments regarding any
remaining issues regarding defendant CCSD's motion for a
protective order and address whether the discovery deadlines
can be reset at that time.
and for good cause shown, IT IS ORDERED that the December 17,
2019 hearing (ECF No. 102) is VACATED.
FURTHER ORDERED that the remaining discovery deadlines
outlined in the Court's amended scheduling order (ECF No.
73 at 4) are VACATED until further order of the Court.
FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will still hold a STATUS
HEARING on Wednesday, January 15, 2020, at 10:00 am.
consistent with the Court's prior order (ECF No. 73 at
FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant's motion for a
protective order (ECF No. 95) is RESET to Wednesday, January
15, 2020 at 10:00 am. The parties are directed to meet and
confer to attempt to narrow the issues presented in the
motion for a protective order.
FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' motions to compel (ECF
Nos. 75, 81, and 88) and motions to seal in support of their
motions to compel (ECF Nos. 76 and 87) are DENIED without
FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court SEAL the unredacted
documents (ECF Nos. 77 and 89) ...