Robinson et al v. North Las Vegas Police Department et al

Filing 19

ORDER Granting 18 Stipulation to Stay Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 5/16/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

1 ROBERT W. FREEMAN, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 3062
2 GREGORY S. BEAN, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 12694
3 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
6385 S. Rainbow Boulevard, Suite 600
4 Las Vegas, Nevada 89118
702.893.3383
5 FAX: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants
North Las Vegas Police Department,
6
Chief Joseph Chronister and
Officer Raymond Lopez
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
DISTRICT OF NEVADA, SOUTHERN DIVISION
10
***
11
DAVID L. ROBINSON, JR, an individual;
12 DENNIA ROBINSON, individually and as
executor/administrator of THE ESTATE OF
13 DAVID L. ROBINSON

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY
DISCOVERY PENDING THE OUTCOME
OF MEDIATION

Plaintiffs,

14
15

CASE NO. 2:14-CV-1912-JCM-VCF

vs.

16 NORTH LAS VEGAS POLICE
DEPARTMENT, a political subdivision of the
17 State of Nevada; CHIEF CHRONISTER,
individually and as policy maker of the North
18 Las Vegas Police Department; OFFICER
RAYMOND LOPEZ, individually; and DOE
19 OFFICERS 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants.

20
21
22

Plaintiffs DAVID L. ROBINSON, individually, and DENNIA ROBINSON, individually

23 and as executor/administrator of THE ESTATE OF DAVID L. ROBINSON (“Plaintiffs”) and
24 Defendants NORTH LAS VEGAS POLICE DEPARTMENT, CHIEF CHRONISTER, and
25 OFFICER RAYMOND LOPEZ (“Defendants”), by and through their respective attorneys of
26 record, hereby agree as follows:
27

LEWIS

On October 24, 2014, Plaintiffs brought suit against Defendants in the Nevada District

28 Court for Clark County Nevada for alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Case No. A-14-

BRISBOIS

BISGAARD
& SMITH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

4814-8543-6209.1

1 708972-C. In the Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that the decedent, David L. Robinson, was killed by
2 Defendant Officer Raymond Lopez on March 10, 2014, in Clark County, Nevada. Defendants
3 thereafter removed the matter to Federal Court.

The parties have conducted preliminary

4 discovery, including the exchange of documents pursuant to FRCP 26 and the issuance of and
5 response to written discovery. Prior to expending potentially unnecessary resources in continued
6 discovery, the parties wish to bring the matter before a mediator to see if the parties can come to a
7 mutually agreeable settlement.
8

A district court has “wide discretion in controlling discovery,” and its decision will not be

9 overturned absent a clear abuse of discretion. Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir.
10 1988). A stay of discovery “furthers the goal of efficiency for the court and litigants.” Id, at 685.
11 A brief stay to allow the parties to privately mediate the matter will preserve the status quo and
12 minimize the expense of the parties’ resources and those of the Court until such mediation can be
13 concluded. Mediterranean Enterprises, Inc. v. Ssangyong Corp., 708 F.2d 1458, 1465 (9th Cir.
14 1983). Additionally, it will prevent the risk of the court needlessly expending its energies to
15 further manage the case when the case may well settle as a result of the parties’ own accord at the
16 upcoming mediation. Sommers v. Cuddy, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12430 (D.Nev. 2013).
17

As such, the parties stipulate as follows:

18

1.

That the Federal Court action be stayed for ninety (90) days or until the parties

19 have completed private mediation.
20

2.

The stay shall include all current deadlines, including discovery deadlines. Any

21 outstanding discovery deadlines shall be stayed as indicated above.
22

3.

Within 30 days after completion of mediation or the expiration of the 90 day stay,

23 the parties will (1) submit a Stipulation and Order reflecting resolution of some or all of the claims
24 and/or (2) reconvene pursuant to LR 26-1 to prepare and submit an updated Discovery Plan and
25 Scheduling Order.
26

4.

If the parties have not completed mediation prior to the expiration of the ninety day

27 stay but still wish to complete mediation under a stay of discovery, the parties shall submit a Joint

LEWIS

28 Status Report and/or Stipulation to the Court, advising the Court why mediation was not

BRISBOIS

BISGAARD
& SMITH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

4814-8543-6209.1

2

1 completed and seeking approval of an appropriate extension of the stay. It will be within the
2 Court’s sole discretion to rule on any Stipulation for continued stay.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

DATED this 13th day of May, 2016.

DATED this 13th day of May, 2016.

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH

LADAH LAW FIRM

/s/ Gregory S. Bean

/s/ Anthony L. Ashby

________________________________
ROBERT W. FREEMAN, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 3062
GREGORY S. BEAN, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 12694
6385 S. Rainbow Blvd, Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89118
Attorney for Defendants North Las Vegas Police
Department, Chief Joseph Chronister, and Officer
Raymond Lopez

________________________
RAMZY PAUL LADAH, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 11405
ANTHONY L. ASHBY, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 04911
517 S. Third Street
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

13
14
ORDER

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated this 16th day of May, 2016.

18
19
20
21

______________________________

22
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27

LEWIS

28

BRISBOIS

BISGAARD
& SMITH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

4814-8543-6209.1

3