Sharda v. Sunrise Hospital and Medical Center, et al

Filing 57

ORDER Granting 54 Stipulation to Stay Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 3/27/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

Case 2:16-cv-02233-JCM-GWF Document 54 Filed 03/14/17 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

JOHN R. BAILEY
Nevada Bar No. 0137
JOSHUA M. DICKEY
Nevada Bar No. 6621
PAUL C. WILLIAMS
Nevada Bar No. 12524
BAILEYKENNEDY
8984 Spanish Ridge Avenue
Las Vegas, Nevada 89148-1302
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 702.562.8821
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants Sunrise Hospital and
Medical Center, LLC, including its Board of
Trustees, Susan Reisinger, M.D. and Katherine
Keeley, M.D., D.D.S.

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

NAVNEET SHARDA, M.D., an Individual,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:16-cv-02233-JCM-GWF

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY
DISCOVERY

vs.
SUNRISE HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL
CENTER, LLC, a foreign limited liability
company; THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
SUNRISE HOSPITAL; SUSAN REISINGER, an
individual; DIPAK DESAI, an individual;
NEVADA STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL
EXAMINERS; KATHERINE KEELEY, an
individual; DOE Individuals I through X; and
ROE CORPORATIONS and
ORGANIZATIONS I through X, inclusive,
Defendants.

23
24

Pursuant to LR IA 6-1, LR 7-1, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d), Plaintiff Navneet

25

Sharda, M.D. (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Sunrise Hospital and Medical Center, LLC, including its

26

Board of Trustees (“Sunrise Hospital”), Susan Reisinger, M.D. (“Dr. Reisinger”), and Katherine

27

Kelley, M.D., D.D.S. (“Dr. Keeley”) (collectively, the “Sunrise Defendants”), through their

28
Page 1 of 4

Case 2:16-cv-02233-JCM-GWF Document 54 Filed 03/14/17 Page 2 of 4

1

respective undersigned counsel, hereby submit this proposed Stipulation and Order to Stay

2

Discovery:

3
4
5

1.

A “district court has wide discretion in controlling discovery.” Little v. City of Seattle,

863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988).
2.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), the Court “may, for good cause,”

6

issue a protective order to stay discovery. A court also has discretion to stay or limit discovery

7

during the pendency of a motion that is likely to dispose of a case. Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278

8

F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011).

9

3.

The goal of Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is paramount in evaluating

10

whether a stay is warranted. Rule 1 provides that the Rules of Civil Procedure shall “be construed

11

and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.” Id. at

12

602 (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–79 (2009)

13

(“Rule 8 marks a notable and generous departure from the hyper-technical, code-pleading regime of

14

a prior era, but it does not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than

15

conclusions.”).

16

4.

In evaluating whether to stay discovery pending a dispositive motion, Courts

17

consider: (1) whether the pending motion is “potentially dispositive of the entire case or at least

18

dispositive of the issue on which discovery is sought;” and (2) whether the pending “motion can be

19

decided without additional discovery.” See Tradebay, LLC, 278 F.R.D. at 602.

20

5.

On December 30, 2016, the Sunrise Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss (See ECF

21

No. 35) (the “Motion”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Motion, if granted

22

in its entirety, would be dispositive of the case.

23

6.

Briefing on the Motion is complete and the Parties await a decision from the Court.

24

7.

The Parties believe that good cause exists to stay discovery pending a decision on the

25

Motion because:

26

(a)

While the Parties have differing views on the merits of the Motion, the Parties

27

agree that the Motion is “potentially dispositive of the entire case” or that the Court’s ruling

28

on the Motion could narrow the scope of discovery. See Tradebay, LLC, 278 F.R.D. at 602.
Page 2 of 4

Case 2:16-cv-02233-JCM-GWF Document 54 Filed 03/14/17 Page 3 of 4

1

In other words, the Motion would make discovery unnecessary if granted in its entirety or

2

would have a substantial impact on the scope of discovery if granted in part. For example,

3

antitrust claims require significant discovery unique to such claims. If discovery is not

4

stayed, the parties would be required to engage in such unique discovery before knowing

5

whether such discovery is necessary.

6

(b)

The Parties agree that discovery is unnecessary to decide the Motion. See id.

7

(c)

The Parties agree that a stay of discovery will promote the goals of Rule 1 “to

8

secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1

9

(d)

Given that the decision on the Motion could make discovery unnecessary or

10

have a substantial impact on the scope of discovery, the parties agree that good cause exists

11

to stay discovery pending a ruling on the Motion. See Tradebay, LLC, 278 F.R.D. at 602.

12

8.

Therefore, based upon the above reasons, which the Parties submit constitute good

13

cause, the Parties hereby stipulate to stay the commencement of discovery pending a ruling on the

14

Motion.

15
16

9.

The Parties will file a Supplemental Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order,

if necessary, within fourteen (14) days after the Court’s ruling on the Motion.

17

Dated this 14th Day of March, 2017

Dated this 14th Day of March, 2017

18

BAILEYKENNEDY

LAW OFFICES OF P. STERLING KERR

19

By: /s/ Paul C. Williams
JOHN R. BAILEY
JOSHUA M. DICKEY
PAUL C. WILLIAMS
Attorneys for Defendants Sunrise Hospital and
Medical Center, LLC, including its Board of
Trustees, Susan Reisinger, M.D. and Katherine
Keeley, M.D., D.D.S.

By: /s/ P. Sterling Kerr
P. STERLING KERR
Nevada Bar No. 3978
2450 St. Rose Parkway, Suite 120
Henderson, Nevada 89074
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

BRYAN NADDAFI
Nevada Bar No. 13004
OLYMPIA LAW, P.C.
9480 S. Eastern Avenue, Suite 257
Las Vegas, Nevada 89123
Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff Navneet Sharda, M.D.

28
Page 3 of 4

Case 2:16-cv-02233-JCM-GWF Document 54 Filed 03/14/17 Page 4 of 4

1

ORDER

2

IT IS SO ORDERED:

3

Based on the foregoing finding of good cause, the commencement of discovery shall be

4

stayed pending a ruling on the Sunrise Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. The parties will submit a

5

Supplemental Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order, if necessary, within fourteen (14)

6

days of the Court’s ruling on the Sunrise Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

7
8
9
10

GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12

Dated: March 27, 2017

13
14

Respectfully Submitted by:

15

BAILEYKENNEDY

16

By: /s/ Paul C. Williams
JOHN R. BAILEY
JOSHUA M. DICKEY
PAUL C. WILLIAMS
Attorneys for Defendants Sunrise Hospital and
Medical Center, LLC, including its Board of
Trustees, Susan Reisinger, M.D. and Katherine
Keeley, M.D., D.D.S.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Page 4 of 4