McIntosh v. Clark County School District et al

Filing 17

ORDER Granting 16 Stipulation to Stay Discovery (First Request). Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 4/3/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

Case 2:17-cv-00490-JAD-NJK Document 16 Filed 03/31/17 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

MARJORIE HAUF, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 008111
DAVID GLUTH, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 10596
GANZ & HAUF
8950 W. Tropicana Ave., Suite 1
Las Vegas, Nevada 89147
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
-o0o-

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA
10
11
12

MELISSA MARIE MCINTOSH, individual and
natural parent and guardian of minor ANTHONY
TYLER HARRIS;

13

CASE NO.:

2:17-cv-0490-JAD-NJK

Plaintiffs,

14

vs.

15

CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT; PAT
SKORKOWSKY, in his individual and official
capacity; JOSEPH PETRIE, in his individual and
official capacity; JAMIE GILBERT, in her
individual and official capacity, ANTHONY
DERBY, in his individual and official capacity;

16
17
18

JOINT STIPULATION AND
(PROPOSED) ORDER TO STAY
DISCOVERY
(First Request)

Defendants.

19
20
21

Plaintiffs, MELISSA MARIE MCINTOSH, individual and natural parent and guardian of

22

minor ANTHONY TYLER HARRIS (“Plaintiffs”), and Defendants, CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL

23

DISTRICT, PAT SKORKOWSKY, JOSEPH PETRIE, JAMIE GILBERT, ANTHONY DERBY

24

(“Defendants”), by and through their attorneys of record, hereby stipulate and agree pursuant to

25

Local Rule 7-1 as follows:

26

1.

Pursuant to Local Rule 26-1(d), the Plaintiff shall initiate “the Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)

27

meeting within thirty (30) days after the first defendant answers or otherwise appears.” On February

28

22, 2017, Defendants appeared when they filed their Motion to Dismiss Complaint (ECF No. 5)

8950 W. Tropicana Ave., #1
Las Vegas, NV 89147
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:17-cv-00490-JAD-NJK Document 16 Filed 03/31/17 Page 2 of 4

1

(“Motion to Dismiss”).

2
3

2.

and scheduling order” fourteen (14) days after the mandatory Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) conference.

4
5

3.

8
9
10

4.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5) seeks to dismiss all the claims against

Defendants for failure to state a claim, application of qualified immunity, and/or the Coverdell Act.
Plaintiffs disputes Defendants’ position and filed their response in opposition alleging that their
claims are sufficiently plead and should not be dismissed. (ECF No. 14). Alternatively, Plaintiffs
requested leave to amend their Complaint. Id.

11
12

The parties held a conference on March 17, 2017 to discuss discovery and case

deadlines, and agreed to enter a stipulation to stay discovery deadlines for the following reasons:

6
7

Pursuant to Local Rule 26-1(d), “the parties shall submit a stipulated discovery plan

5.

The parties agree it is in the best interest of all parties to await the Court’s ruling on

the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5) prior to setting discovery deadlines and incurring the time and
expense of written discovery and depositions in the event the Court dismisses the action in whole or
in part.
6.

Federal district courts have “wide discretion in controlling discovery.” Little v. City

of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). In exercising this discretion, a district court may stay
discovery based on the filing of a motion that is “potential dispositive of the entire case.” Tradebay,
LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). See also Turner Broadcasting Sys. v.
Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997) (holding that “[w]hether to grant a stay is
within the discretion of the Court…”); Ministerio Roca Solida v. U.S. Dep’t of Fish & Wildlife, 288
F.R.D. 500, 506 (D. Nev. 2013) (“discovery should be stayed while dispositive motions are pending
only when there are no factual issues in need of further immediate exploration, and the issues before
the Court are purely questions of law…”) (internal quotations omitted). As such, it is within the
Court’s power to grant a stay of discovery at this time.
7.

It would be burdensome and unfair to have the parties incur the expense of time-

consuming and costly discovery because the parties have agreed to a stay. Rule 1 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the federal rules of practice should be “construed and
administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and

8950 W. Tropicana Ave., #1
Las Vegas, NV 89147
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:17-cv-00490-JAD-NJK Document 16 Filed 03/31/17 Page 3 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

proceeding.” (emphasis added). Thus, staying discovery in this case is consistent with the spirit and
intent of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Further, should the Court agree that Plaintiffs are
entitled to amend their Complaint, if necessary, then parties would need to conduct discovery as to
the amended pleadings. If a stay is not granted, the parties will be required to engage in and incur
the costs of discovery which may not be necessary.
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///

8950 W. Tropicana Ave., #1
Las Vegas, NV 89147
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:17-cv-00490-JAD-NJK Document 16 Filed 03/31/17 Page 4 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6

8.

In order to preserve the parties’ resources, and to promote judicial economy, the

parties have agreed, subject to the Court’s approval, to stay discovery until this Court rules on
Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss. The parties further stipulate to delay submission of the
stipulated discovery plan and discovery order for fourteen (14) days after this Court rules on
Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss.
DATED: March __31___ , 2017.

DATED: March __31___ , 2017.

GANZ & HAUF

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

/s/ David Gluth
MARJORIE HAUF, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 008111
DAVID T. GLUTH, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 10596
8950 W. Tropicana Ave., Suite 1
Las Vegas, Nevada 89147

/s/ Daniel L. O’Brien
DANIEL L. O’BRIEN, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 0983
CARLOS L. MCDADE, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 11205
5100 W. Sahara Ave.
Las Vegas, Nevada 89146

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Attorneys for Defendants

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19

DATED: April 3, 2017

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8950 W. Tropicana Ave., #1
Las Vegas, NV 89147
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Page 4 of 4