Opromollo v. Mandalay Corp.

Filing 14

ORDER Granting 13 Stipulation to Stay Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 8/7/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

HILARY B. MUCKLEROY, ESQ., Bar # 9632
AMY L. THOMPSON, ESQ., Bar # 11907
MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL
6385 S. Rainbow Blvd, Suite 500
Las Vegas, NV 89118
Telephone:
702.692.1959
Fax No.:
702.669.4501
Email:
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant
Mandalay Corp. d/b/a/ Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
11

PAUL OPROMOLLO, an individual

12

Plaintiff,

13

vs.

14

MANDALAY CORP. d/b/a MANDALAY
BAY RESORT AND CASINO;
DOES 1 through 10 inclusive; ROE
CORPORATIONS/ENTITIES 1 through
10 inclusive,

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

Case No. 2:17-cv-01409-RFB-VCF

[PROPOSED] STIPULATION AND
ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY FOR A
PERIOD OF 60 DAYS
[First Request]

Defendants.
Plaintiff Paul Opromollo (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Mandalay Corp. d/b/a Mandalay Bay
Resort and Casino, by and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate to stay discovery for a
period of sixty (60) days.
Counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant held a Rule 26(f) conference on August 3, 2017. In the
Rule 26(f) conference, it was discussed and agreed that a stay of discovery was warranted in this
matter in light of the parties having commenced settlement discussions which could result in early
resolution of the matter. Additionally Defendant has filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6) that
may result in dismissal of some or all of Plaintiff’s claims.
In assessing a request to stay discovery, the Court decides whether it is necessary to speed
the parties along in discovery or whether it is appropriate to delay discovery and spare the parties the

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

associated expense. Tradebay, LLC v. Ebay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 603 (D. Nev. 2011). To make
this assessment, the Court takes a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the purportedly dispositive
motion, though, importantly, this “preliminary peek” does not prejudge the outcome of the motion, it
merely evaluates whether an order staying discovery is warranted. Id. The merits of the pending
motion will ultimately be determined by the District Judge who may have a different view than the
Magistrate Judge. Id.
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is the type warranting a stay of discovery as Defendant has
sought to dismiss all of Plaintiff’s claims. Accordingly, requiring the parties to conduct discovery
on claims that may be dismissed and may not be curable by amendment would cause an unnecessary
expense on the parties and potentially log the Court’s docket with unnecessary discovery disputes on
these claims. Additionally, because Defendant moved to dismiss the entire case, Plaintiff has not
been apprised of which factual allegations Defendant intends to admit, and which Defendant intends
to deny. Nor has Plaintiff been apprised of the defenses Defendant intends to assert. Plaintiff
believes this would limit his ability to conduct full discovery while the Motion to Dismiss is
pending.
Plaintiff disputes the arguments made in Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, but agrees that the
motion is of the type warranting a stay of discovery. Moreover, the parties have commenced
informal settlement discussions which may result in an early resolution of this case. This matter has
also been set for an early neutral evaluation conference on August 9, 2017. The parties wish to
divert efforts and resources toward the ENE before engaging in extensive discovery. Thus, it would
be appropriate to spare the parties the burden and expense of discovery in light of these reasons.
Therefore, the parties jointly request the Court stay discovery for sixty days.
The parties will re-visit the issue after sixty days to determine whether circumstances have
changed that might warrant commencing discovery or continuing the stay. Accordingly, the parties
request that discovery be stayed sixty days or until October 4, 2017, unless the Court rules on
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss prior to that date. If the Court rules on the Motion to Dismiss prior
to October 4, 2017, and the complaint is not dismissed in its entirety, the parties will submit a
2.

1
2
3
4
5

stipulated discovery plan and scheduling order within 14 days of the Court’s ruling on Defendant’s
Motion. If the Court does not rule on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss prior to October 4, 2017 the
parties will conduct another discovery conference and either submit a stipulated discovery plan and
scheduling order, or a proposed stipulation for an additional stay of discovery.
Dated: August 4, 2017

6
7

MGM Resorts International

The Thater Law Group, P.C.

/s Amy Thompson

/s M. Lani Esteban-Trinidad

HILARY B. MUCKLEROY, ESQ.
AMY THOMPSON, ESQ.
MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL

M. LANI ESTEBAN-TRINIDAD, ESQ.

8
9
10
11
12
13

Attorney for Plaintiff Paul Opromollo

Attorneys for Defendant
Mandalay Corp. dba Mandalay Bay

14

IT IS SO ORDERED

15

Dated this 7th day of August 2017.

16
17
18
19

United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3.