John Doe I, et al., v. Jeremiah Mazo, et al.,
Filing
83
ORDER Granting 81 First Stipulation. Plaintiff's 79 Motion to Shorten Time is WITHDRAWN. The Motion Hearing re 78 Motion for Protective Order is continued to 6/19/2018 at 10:00 AM in LV Courtroom 3B before Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 5/22/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)
Case 2:16-cv-00239-APG-PAL Document 81 Filed 05/18/18 Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
3773 Howard Hughes Parkway - Suite 400 North
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
(702) 792-3773
(702) 792-9002 (fax)
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MARK E. FERRARIO
Nevada Bar No. 1625
ferrariom@gtlaw.com
KARA B. HENDRICKS
Nevada Bar No. 7743
hendricksk@gtlaw.com
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
3773 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 400 North
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
Telephone: (702) 792-3773
Fax:
(702) 792-9002
Counsel for Defendant
Clark County School District
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
JOHN and JANE DOE I, Guardians Ad Litem
for JOANN DOE I, a minor, individually and
on behalf of all those similarly situated, and
JOHN and JANE DOE II, Guardians Ad Litem
for JOANN DOE II, a minor, individually and
on behalf of all those similarly situated;
vs.
Plaintiffs,
JEREMIAH MAZO; CLARK COUNTY
SCHOOL DISTRICT; DOES 1 through 20;
DOE 1 through 20; ROE CORPORATIONS 1
through 20;
Defendants.
Case No. 2:16-cv-00239-APG-PAL
[PROPOSED] STIPULATION AND
ORDER TO WITHDRAW MOTION FOR
ORDER SHORTENING TIME (Doc. 79);
ALLOWING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (Doc. 78) TO
BE BRIEFED AND HEARD IN NORMAL
COURSE; AND VACATING MAY 24,
2018 HEARING
(First Request)
Plaintiffs, JOHN and JANE DOE I, GUARDIANS AD LITEM FOR JOANN DOE I, A
MINOR AND JOHN AND JANE DOE II, GUARDIANS AD LITEM FOR JOANN DOE II, A
MINOR (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), and Defendant CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT
(“CCSD”), by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby jointly submit this stipulation
by which Plaintiffs’ agree to withdraw their Motion for an Order Shortening Time for Hearing on
Plaintiffs’ Motion of for Protective Order (Doc. 79) and CCSD agrees not to proceed with the
depositions noticed for May 29, 2018 until such time as this Court is able to fully review and
-1LV 421029734v3 120810.011500
Case 2:16-cv-00239-APG-PAL Document 81 Filed 05/18/18 Page 2 of 3
1
2
consider the issues raised in Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective (Doc. 78) which the parties agree can
5
depositions noticed for May 29, 2018 and also filed a Motion for Order Shortening Time for a
8
May 29, 2018 until the Court is able to fully review and consider the issues raised in Plaintiffs’
11
and due to the importance of the issue at hand believe briefing in the normal course is in the best
14
issued a minute order on May 18, 2018 scheduling a hearing for May 24, 2018 (Doc. 80) which is a
17
and CCSD that:
3
4
be briefed and heard in normal course.
WHEREAS Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 78) relating to certain
6
Hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion of for Protective Order (Doc. 79);
9
Motion for Protective Order as well as the response that CCSD intends to file;
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
3773 Howard Hughes Parkway - Suite 400 North
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
(702) 792-3773
(702) 792-9002 (fax)
7
10
WHEREAS CCSD will voluntarily agree not to proceed with the depositions noticed for
WHEREAS the parties have additional deposition scheduled in this matter in the short term
12
interest of all parties;
15
date on which deposition is scheduled in this matter;
13
16
WHEREAS during the course of the parties agreeing to the terms of the foregoing this Court
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between Plaintiffs,
18
1.
19
Plaintiffs’ will withdraw their Motion for an Order Shortening Time for Hearing on
Plaintiffs’ Motion of for Protective Order (Doc. 79);
20
2. CCSD will not proceed with the depositions noticed for May 29, 2018 until such time as
23
3. That the briefing related to Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective (Doc. 78) will proceed in the
21
this Court is able to fully review and consider the issues raised in Plaintiff’s Motion for
22
24
25
26
27
28
Protective (Doc. 78); and
normal course pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable Local
Rules.
//
//
-2LV 421029734v3 120810.011500
Case 2:16-cv-00239-APG-PAL Document 81 Filed 05/18/18 Page 3 of 3
1
2
4. It is further agreed that the May 24, 2018 hearing scheduled pursuant to the minute order
3
4
5
6
7
8
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
3773 Howard Hughes Parkway - Suite 400 North
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
(702) 792-3773
(702) 792-9002 (fax)
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
issued on May 18, 2018 (Doc. 80) is hereby vacated with a new hearing to be set by the
Court following the full briefing of the Motion for Protective Order.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Dated this 18th day of May, 2018.
Dated this 18th day of May, 2018.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
EGLET PRINCE
/s/ Kara B. Hendricks
MARK E. FERRARIO, ESQ. (NV BAR 1625)
KARA B. HENDRICKS, ESQ. (NV BAR 7743)
3773 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 400 North
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
Attorneys for Defendant Clark County
School District
/s/ Artemus W. Ham
ROBERT T. EGLET, ESQ. (NV BAR 3402)
ARTEMUS W. HAM, ESQ. (NV BAR 7001)
AARON D. FORD, ESQ. (NV BAR 7704)
400 S. 7th Street, 4th Floor
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
-andHALL JAFFE & CLAYTON, LLP
STEVEN T. JAFFE, ESQ. (NV BAR 7035)
7425 Peak Drive
Las Vegas, Nevada 89128
Attorneys for Defendant Clark County
School District
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's Motion for Order Shortening Time (ECF No. 79) is WITHDRAWN.
2. The Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 78) currently set for May 24, 2018, at 11:00 a.m., is
VACATED and CONTINUED to June 19, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3B.
DATED this 22nd day of May, 2018.
____________________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
-3LV 421029734v3 120810.011500
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?