Reda A. Ginena, etal VS Alaska Airlines, Inc.

Filing 233

ORDER Approved in Part 232 Stipulation to Extend Discovery Period to Accommodate Private Mediation. The Settlement Conference currently scheduled for 6/28/2012, before the undersigned is VACATED. The parties request to stay discovery is DENIED. The Parties request for an extension of discovery is GRANTED. Discovery due by 6/28/2012. Response to Plaintiffs 228 motion is due by 12:00 PM on 5/21/2012. Joint Status Report due by 6/11/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 5/17/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9
10
11
12
13
14

REDA A. GINENA, et al.,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ALASKA AIRLINES, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:04-cv-01304-RCJ-CWH
ORDER

15
16
17
18

This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Stipulation to Extend Discovery Period to
Accommodate Private Mediation (#232), filed May 9, 2012.
After the Ninth Circuit entered its order (#215), Chief Judge Jones held a status conference in

19

order to determine how this litigation should proceed. During that hearing, in conformance with the

20

Ninth Circuit’s order, Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended complaint (#56) was granted and

21

deemed filed as of March 19, 2012. See Mins. of Proceedings (#225). Defendant was given 10 days, or

22

until March 29, 2012, to file an answer or otherwise respond to the amended complaint. The parties

23

were given a 60 day period, or until Monday, May 28, 2012, to complete discovery. Additionally, the

24

then existing trial schedule was vacated and rescheduled with the joint pretrial due by July 20, 2012,

25

calendar call scheduled for August 6, 2012, and the trial set for August 20, 2012. The parties were also

26

instructed to contact the undersigned to schedule a settlement conference if they believed such a

27

conference would be of assistance. Subsequently, based upon the parties’ request, the undersigned

28

scheduled a settlement conference for June 8, 2012. See Order (#227).
On May 1, 2012, approximately 30 days before the close of discovery, Defendant filed its

1

motion (#228) seeking leave to depose each plaintiff, except for Nahid Ginena, a second time “to allow

2

for questioning on the newly added defamation claims.” See Def.’s Mot. (#228) at 3:4-5. Defendant

3

argues the additional depositions are necessary because the defamation claims had been dismissed prior

4

to the time when Plaintiffs were first deposed in December of 2005. Given the limited time remaining

5

for discovery and the fast-approaching trial date, the Court, pursuant to Local Rule 7-2(b) and (c),

6

shortened the time for response to Defendant’s motion to May 9, 2012, with any reply due by May 11,

7

2012. See Min. Order (#230).

8

Thereafter, on May 9, 2012, the day Plaintiffs’ response to Defendant’s motion (#228) was due,

9

the parties filed a joint stipulation (#232). The parties identified discovery which had been completed

10

and discovery, including additional requests to compel or for protective orders, still contemplated. The

11

parties stipulated to stay “all discovery and related motion practice” pending completion of a private

12

mediation in New York on June 7 or 8, 2012. See Stip. (#232) at 2: 11-12. In addition to the requested

13

stay, the parties also request (1) that the scheduled settlement conference before the undersigned by

14

vacated and (2) that the Court permit a 20 day period for discovery following the mediation if it is

15

unsuccessful.

16

The undersigned has reviewed the stipulation and agrees that the contemplated private

17

mediation is appropriate. Thus, the settlement conference currently scheduled for June 8, 2012, will be

18

vacated. The Court is concerned, however, with the parties’ desire to stay discovery and motion

19

practice until after the private mediation. When the stipulation was filed, only 20 days remained in the

20

discovery period and, based upon the parties’ representations, “considerable discovery” had been

21

completed but “more is noticed or contemplated and additional motions to compel or for protective

22

orders are also contemplated.” See Stip. (#232) at 2: 7-8. Additionally, the pending discovery motion

23

(#228) contemplates the deposition of eight of nine Plaintiffs on seven new causes of action. The

24

stipulation clearly conflicts with the time currently set for completion of discovery. Pursuant to LR 7-

25

1(b), “[a]ny stipulation that would interfere with any time set for completion of discovery, for hearing

26

of a motion, or for trial, may be made only with the approval of the Court.” This case is 8 years old.

27

The trial date is set. Discovery will shortly close. More discovery and motion practice related to

28

discovery is contemplated. Thus, the Court finds that a stay of discovery is not appropriate.
2

1

Nevertheless, to ensure adequate time for completion of discovery following the mediation, the Court

2

will grant an additional 20 days for discovery.

3

More problematic, is Defendant’s pending motion (#228). If granted, it would require eight of

4

the named plaintiffs, all of whom are foreign nationals residing outside the United States, to appear for

5

a second deposition. After notices of the depositions were served, the parties met and conferred but

6

Plaintiffs did not agree to the depositions. Given that the motion requires consideration of not only the

7

propriety of the requested depositions, but, in all likelihood, the time, location, and parameters for the

8

depositions, the Court shortened the briefing schedule. It did so to ensure that, if the motion is granted,

9

the parties would have ample time to complete the depositions. Unfortunately, rather than filing the

10

required response, the parties submitted a stipulation staying the motion practice until after the

11

contemplated mediation. At this stage, the Court is simply not inclined to delay its decision on the

12

Defendant’s motion (#228). Thus, rather than grant the motion for non-opposition, the Court will

13

require Plaintiffs to file their response by 12:00 PM on Monday, May 21, 2012. Failure to do so will

14

result in the motion being granted for non-opposition.

15

Based on the foregoing and good cause appearing therefore,

16

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ Stipulation to Extend Discovery Period to

17

Accommodate Private Mediation (#232) is approved in part. Based on the parties’ desire to

18

participate in private mediation, the Settlement Conference currently scheduled for June 8, 2012, before

19

the undersigned is VACATED.

20
21
22

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ request to stay discovery is DENIED. The
parties should continue with discovery.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ request for an extension of discovery is

23

GRANTED. Discovery will close on Thursday, June 28, 2012. No further extensions will be

24

granted.

25

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all discovery motions are due by the close of discovery.

26

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s motion (#228) is due by

27

12:00 PM on Monday, May 21, 2012. Failure to file a timely response will result in the motion being

28

granted for non-opposition.
3

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint status report on Monday, June

2

11, 2012, informing the Court of the results of the mediation as well as outlining all discovery which

3

has been completed and all discovery that remains

4

DATED this 17th day of May, 2012.

5
6
7

C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4