Williams v. Aria Resort & Casino Holdings, LLC et al

Filing 11

ORDER Granting 10 Stipulation to Stay Discovery. Discovery stayed until 12/26/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 9/26/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

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 Aria Resort & Casino, LLC

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
11

PATRICIA A. WILLIAMS,

12

Case No. 2:17-cv-01484-JCM-VCF

Plaintiff,

13

vs.

14

ARIA RESORT & CASINO, LLC, a
Nevada limited liability company

STIPULATION
AND
ORDER TO
STAY DISCOVERY FOR 90 DAYS

15
Defendant.
16
17
18

Plaintiff Patricia A. Williams (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Aria Resort and Casino, LLC, by

19

and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate to stay discovery for a period of sixty (90) days.

20

Counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant held a Rule 26(f) conference on September 5, 2017. In

21

the Rule 26(f) conference, it was discussed and agreed that a stay of discovery was warranted in this

22

matter in light of the parties having commenced settlement discussions which could result in early

23

resolution of the matter. Additionally Defendant has filed a Motion to Dismiss that may result in

24

dismissal of Plaintiff’s Title VII and NRS 613 claims.

25

In assessing a request to stay discovery, the Court decides whether it is necessary to speed

26

the parties along in discovery or whether it is appropriate to delay discovery and spare the parties the

27

associated expense. Tradebay, LLC v. Ebay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 603 (D. Nev. 2011). To make

28

this assessment, the Court takes a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the purportedly dispositive

1
2
3
4

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.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is the type warranting a stay of discovery because Defendant
has sought dismissal of the bulk 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, 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 severely limit her
ability to conduct full discovery while the Motion to Dismiss is pending.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

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 and that discovery is not necessary while the
Court resolves the legal issues raised by the Motion. Moreover, the parties have commenced
informal settlement discussions which may result in an early resolution of this case. The parties also
note that this is a case where an early neutral evaluation conference will be ordered pursuant to
Local Rule 16-6 as it is a case involving claims of employment discrimination. 1 The parties wish to
divert efforts to 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.

22
23
24
25
26

The parties will re-visit the issue after ninety 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 December 26, 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 December 26, 2017, the parties will submit a stipulated discovery plan and scheduling order

27
1

28

The Court has not yet issued the order scheduling the Early Neutral Evaluation hearing.

2.

1
2
3
4

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 December 26, 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.

5
6

Dated: September 26, 2017

7
8

/s Robert P. Spretnak
____________________
Robert P. Spretnak
Law Offices of Robert P. Spretnak
8275 S. Eastern Avenue Ste. 200
Las Vegas, NV 89123

11

/s Amy L. Thompson
____________________
Hilary B. Muckleroy, Esq., Bar # 9632
Amy L. Thompson, Esq., Bar # 11907
MGM Resorts International
6385 S. Rainbow Ste. 500
Las Vegas, NV 89118

12

Attorneys for Defendant

Attorney for Plaintiff

9
10

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED
26th
Dated this ____ day of September 2017

16
17
18
19

__________________________________

United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3.