Roberts v. Clark County School District

Filing 131

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' motions for leave to file excess pages 53 , 87 are GRANTED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties' stipulation to stay discovery 127 is DENIED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff� 39;s motion for leave to file supplemental briefing 130 is GRANTED in part. Roberts and the District each has until 6/30/16. (See order for additional details.) The parties will then have 10 days to file a response to the others supplemental br ief; these response briefs may not exceed 10 pages. No additional summary-judgment briefing will be permitted, and the court will not entertain stipulations or motions to enlarge time or these page limits. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 5/17/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - PS)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

2:15-cv-00388-JAD-PAL
Bradley Roberts,

4
Plaintiff
5

Order Regarding Summary-Judgment
Briefing and Stipulation to Stay Discovery

v.
6

[ECF Nos. 53, 87, 127, 130]
Clark County School District,

7
Defendant
8
9
10

Plaintiff Bradley Roberts brings this discrimination lawsuit against the Clark County School

11

District, alleging that the District prohibited him from using male restrooms after he disclosed his

12

transgender status. In an oversized brief, Roberts moves for summary judgment on the district’s

13

liability for a period of discrimination and retaliation,1 and seeks permission to exceed page limits.2

14

The District responds and countermoves for summary judgment with its own oversized brief and

15

request for additional pages.3 In its response, the District moves under FRCP 56(d) to deny or delay

16

consideration of Roberts’s summary-judgment motion because material discovery is still ongoing.4

17

The parties have recently submitted a stipulation to stay certain discovery pending a resolution of the

18

summary-judgment motions.5 And, just yesterday, Roberts filed a motion for leave to supplement

19

the briefing on the cross-motions to address new, potentially persuasive transgender-discrimination

20
21
22
23
1

ECF No. 54.

2

ECF No. 53.

26

3

ECF No. 87, 89.

27

4

ECF No. 89 at 23–24.

28

5

ECF No. 127.

24
25

Page 1 of 4

1

jurisprudence.6 I issue this order under my inherent power to control the docket7 and to streamline

2

this summary-judgment briefing and help bring these issues to the point where they can be properly

3

adjudicated.

4

A.

Requests to Enlarge Page Limits

5

Recognizing the complex nature of the issues raised by the cross-motions for summary

6

judgment, I find good cause to grant both parties’ requests for extra pages. Accordingly, I grant

7

Roberts’s Motion to Exceed the 30-Page Limit [ECF No. 53] and the District’s motion to do the

8

same [ECF No. 87].

9

B.

Discovery and Summary Judgment

10

Discovery in this case is ongoing. The discovery cutoff date is June 6, 2016. The parties

11

have raised various issues about the impact of discovery on these pending cross-motions and the

12

impact of these pending cross-motions on discovery.

13

First, the District asks me to deny Roberts’s motion for summary judgment or delay ruling on

14

it until after discovery has closed.8 Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits me to

15

defer consideration of a motion for summary judgment or deny it, allow time to obtain discovery, or

16

issue any other appropriate order, if a nonmovant shows by affidavit that it cannot present facts

17

essential to justify its opposition.9 I find that the District has satisfied Rule 56(d)’s requirements.

18

Although significant discovery has transpired and continues to transpire, the record is still evolving

19

and contains disputed issues of fact.10 Under these circumstances, the decision to grant the District’s

20

Rule 56(d) motion and delay consideration of the motions until discovery is completed is judicially

21

economical. I thus grant the District’s Rule 56(d) request in part; I will defer consideration of the

22
23

6

ECF No. 130.

24

7

See Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010).

25

8

ECF No. 89 at 23–24.

9

FED. R. CIV. P. 56(d).

26
27

10

28

Indeed, the parties’ proposed stipulation to stay discovery states that even if the court grants a stay,
they will still proceed with limited discovery. ECF No. 127 at 3.
Page 2 of 4

1

cross-motions summary judgment until after discovery has closed and the parties have had an

2

opportunity to brief for me the impact of that discovery on the pending issues.

3

This brings me to the proposed stipulation to stay discovery [ECF No. 127]. Because I

4

cannot now say with certainty which issues in this complicated web of motions will be impacted by

5

remaining discovery, I do not find good cause to stay any discovery. I therefore reject the parties’

6

stipulation [ECF No. 127] and advise the parties to complete any discovery they believe they need to

7

conduct before the June 6, 2016, cutoff date.

8

C.

Supplemental Briefing

9

Finally, I consider the most economical way to ensure that all parties have full opportunities

10

to brief the court on the issues. Discovery will reveal additional information that the court should be

11

apprised of before thoughtfully considering the cross-motions. And Roberts advises in his motion

12

for leave to file supplemental briefing that new, persuasive authority exists.11 He asks to be

13

permitted to file four pages to address this new authority.12

14

I grant that request—with modification. After discovery closes, I will allow both parties to

15

file supplemental briefs (to be titled “Plaintiff’s Supplemental Brief in Support of Summary

16

Judgment” and “Defendant’s Supplemental Brief in Support of Summary Judgment”) of up to 10

17

pages each that address any new facts, evidence, developments, arguments, authority, or anything

18

else that the parties believe are appropriate for the court to consider in conjunction with the issues

19

raised in the cross-motions for summary judgment. These supplemental briefs will be due by June

20

30, 2016. The parties will then have 10 days to file a response to the other’s supplemental brief that

21

may not exceed 10 pages. No additional briefing will be permitted, and the court will not

22

entertain stipulations or motions to enlarge time or these page limits.

23

Conclusion

24
25

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ motions for leave to file excess
pages (ECF Nos. 53, 87) are GRANTED;

26
27

11

ECF No. 130.

28

12

Id.
Page 3 of 4

1
2
3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ stipulation to stay discovery (ECF No. 127)
is DENIED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave to file supplemental briefing

4

(ECF No. 130) is GRANTED in part. Roberts and the District each has until June 30, 2016, to file

5

a supplemental brief of no more than 10 pages that addresses any and all new facts, evidence,

6

developments, arguments, authority, or anything else that the parties believe are appropriate for the

7

court to consider in conjunction with the issues raised in the cross-motions for summary judgment.

8

The parties will then have 10 days to file a response to the other’s supplemental brief; these response

9

briefs may not exceed 10 pages. No additional summary-judgment briefing will be permitted,

10

and the court will not entertain stipulations or motions to enlarge time or these page limits.

11

Dated this 17th day of May, 2016.

12
13
14

_________________________________
____________________
_
_
_ _
Jennifer A. Dorsey
ifer A. Dorsey
r D
United States District Judge
ed
t Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 4 of 4