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)

Download PDF
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: hmuckleroy@mgmresorts.com abaker@mgmresorts.com 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.

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?