Klatt v. Dignity Health

Filing 46

ORDER Granting 45 Stipulation to Stay Briefing Scheduling re 40 Motion for Protective Order (First Request). See Order for details/deadlines. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 5/18/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Elayna J. Youchah Nevada State Bar No. 5837 Kirsten A. Milton Nevada State Bar. No. 14401 JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 3800 Howard Hughes Pkwy, Suite 600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 Tel: (702) 921-2460 youchahe@jacksonlewis.com kirsten.milton@jacksonlewis.com Attorneys for Defendant Dignity Health 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 11 MEGAN E. KLATT, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff, vs. DIGNITY HEALTH, a California corporation; DOES 1-50, unknown individuals; and ROE COMPANIES 1-50, unknown business entities, Case No. 2:17-cv-02425-RFB-PAL STIPULATION TO STAY BRIEFING SCHEDULING ON MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (First Request) Defendants. 17 18 Megan Klatt, Plaintiff, and Dignity Health, Defendant (collectively Plaintiff and Defendant 19 are referred to herein as the “Parties”), by and through their respective undersigned counsel, 20 stipulate and agree to stay briefing in and the Court’s consideration of Defendant’s Motion for 21 Protective Order (ECF No. 40) (“Defendant’s Motion”), for a three week period measured from 22 May 18, 2018, which is the due date for Plaintiff’s Opposition. The three week stay is requested to 23 allow the Parties to continue discussions toward the goal of eliminating the need for the Court to 24 consider Defendant’s Motion. At the conclusion of the stay, the Parties shall submit a stipulation 25 notifying the Court of one of the following: (i) the Parties have reached agreement regarding the 26 issues raised in Defendant’s Motion rendering Defendant’s Motion moot; (ii) the Parties have not 27 28 Jackson Lewis P.C. Las Vegas 1 reached agreement regarding the issues raised in Defendant’s Motion resulting in an agreed upon 2 briefing schedule pertaining to all unresolved issues; or (iii) the Parties seek additional time to 3 resolve the issues presented in Defendant’s Motion. 4 On May 16, 2018 the Court issued a minute order scheduling a hearing on the Defendant’s 5 Motion for June 12, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. Given the agreement of the Parties as set forth above, it is 6 requested that the Court vacate the scheduled hearing. 7 This stipulation is submitted in good faith and not for the purpose of delay. 8 DATED this 17th day of May 2018. DATED this 17th day of May 2018. 9 SEMENZA KIRCHER RICKARD JACKSON LEWIS P.C. /s/ Lawrence J. Semenza III Lawrence J. Semenza, III, Esq., Bar No. 7174 Christopher D. Kircher, Esq., Bar No. 11176 Jarrod L. Rickard, Esq., Bar No. 10203 10161 Park Run Drive, Suite 150 Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 /s/ Elayna J. Youchah Elayna J. Youchah, Esq., Bar No. 5837 Kirsten A. Milton, Esq., Bar No. 14401 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 Attorneys for Plaintiff Megan E. Klatt and all others similarly situated Attorneys for Defendant Dignity Health 10 11 12 13 14 15 ORDER 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT, the briefing schedule and the Court’s consideration of Defendant, Dignity Health’s Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 40) shall be stayed through and including June 12. On or before the end of the day on June 8, Plaintiff and Defendant shall submit a stipulation notifying Court that (i) identifies whether ECF No.40 is moot, (ii) provides the Court with a revised briefing schedule on remaining issues presented in Defendant’s Motion, or (iii) explains the need for more time to resolve issues addressed by ECF No. 40. The hearing presently scheduled for June 12, 2018 relating to Defendant's Motion shall be vacated. 25 26 ____________________________________ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28 Jackson Lewis P.C. Las Vegas DATED: 2 May 18, 2018

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?