Wynn v. Bloom et al
Filing
27
ORDER Granting #22 First Stipulation for Extension of Time Re: #18 Special Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 6/1/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)
Case 2:18-cv-00609-JCM-GWF Document 25 Filed 05/31/18 Page 1 of 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
10001 Park Run Drive
Las Vegas, NV 89145
702.786.1001
PETERSON BAKER, PLLC
11
TAMARA BEATTY PETERSON, ESQ., Bar No. 5218
tpeterson@petersonbaker.com
NIKKI L. BAKER, ESQ., Bar No. 6562
nbaker@petersonbaker.com
PETERSON BAKER, PLLC
10001 Park Run Drive
Las Vegas, NV 89145
Telephone: 702.786.1001
Facsimile: 702.786.1002
L. LIN WOOD, ESQ. (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
lwood@linwoodlaw.com
NICOLE JENNINGS WADE, ESQ. (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
nwade@linwoodlaw.com
G. TAYLOR WILSON, ESQ. (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
twilson@linwoodlaw.com
L. LIN WOOD, P.C.
1180 West Peachtree Street, Suite 2400
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Telephone: 404.891.1402
Facsimile: 404.506.9111
Attorneys for Plaintiff Steve Wynn
13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
15
STEVE WYNN, an individual,
16
17
18
19
20
v.
Plaintiff,
LISA BLOOM, an individual; and THE
BLOOM FIRM, a California Professional
Corporation,
Defendants.
Case No.: 2:18-cv-00609-JCM-GWF
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER RE: EXTENSION OF TIME FOR
PLAINTIFF TO FILE RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANTS' SPECIAL MOTION TO
DISMISS
(First Request)
21
22
Plaintiff Steve Wynn ("Mr. Wynn"), by and through his attorneys of record, Tamara Beatty
23
Peterson, Esq. and Nikki L. Baker, Esq., of Peterson Baker, PLLC, and L. Lin Wood, Esq., Nicole
24
Jennings Wade, Esq., and G. Taylor Wilson, Esq., of L. Lin Wood, P.C., and Defendants Lisa
25
Bloom and The Bloom Firm (collectively, the "Bloom Defendants"), by and through their
26
attorneys of record, Marc J. Randazza, Esq., Ronald D. Green, Esq., and Alex J. Shepard, Esq., of
27
the Randazza Legal Group, PLLC, hereby agree and stipulate, subject to the Court's approval, as
28
Case 2:18-cv-00609-JCM-GWF Document 25 Filed 05/31/18 Page 2 of 4
1
2
follows:
1.
On April 5, 2018, Mr. Wynn filed his "Complaint for Defamation" [ECF No. 1]
3
against the Bloom Defendants based on a press release they issued accusing Mr. Wynn of improper
4
acts relating to a former dancer in the Wynn Las Vegas show, "ShowStoppers."
5
6
7
2.
On May 8, 2018, the Bloom Defendants filed their "Answer and Affirmative
Defenses" [ECF No. 16].
3.
On May 15, 2018, the Bloom Defendants filed a "Special Motion to Dismiss
8
Pursuant to NRS 41.660" [ECF No. 18] and a "Request for Judicial Notice in Support of
9
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment Invoking the Substantive Portions of the Nevada Anti-
10
4.
In support of the anti-SLAPP Motion, the Bloom Defendants submitted twenty-five
12
10001 Park Run Drive
Las Vegas, NV 89145
702.786.1001
PETERSON BAKER, PLLC
11
SLAPP Statute, NRS 41.635 et seq." [ECF No. 19] (collectively, the "anti-SLAPP Motion").
(25) exhibits. (See ECF No. 18-2—18-27.) Six (6) of their exhibits are declarations, four (4) of
13
which are from third party witnesses testifying to facts purportedly bearing on the truth of the
14
statements at issue in this action and the knowledge of the Bloom Defendants regarding same.
15
16
17
5.
Pursuant to Local Rule 7-2(b), the Clerk's Office's docket states that Mr. Wynn's
response to the anti-SLAPP Motion is due on May 29, 2018.
6.
Mr. Wynn and the Bloom Defendants (collectively referred to, where appropriate,
18
as the "Parties") have not yet held a Rule 26(f) conference. Mr. Wynn's response to the anti-
19
SLAPP Motion is due prior to the deadline to hold any Rule 26(f) conference.
20
7.
Following receipt of the anti-SLAPP Motion, Mr. Wynn's counsel informed the
21
Bloom Defendants' counsel that Mr. Wynn intended to file a Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) motion to conduct
22
limited and necessary discovery, in the possession of the Bloom Defendants and third parties,
23
relevant to responding to the allegations in the anti-SLAPP Motion relating to falsity and actual
24
malice and, to this end, sought an extension of the deadline to file Mr. Wynn's response to the anti-
25
SLAPP Motion.
26
27
8.
The Parties are currently attempting to agree on the discovery Mr. Wynn may
conduct relating to the anti-SLAPP Motion consistent with Rule 56(d). If the Parties are unable to
28
2
Case 2:18-cv-00609-JCM-GWF Document 25 Filed 05/31/18 Page 3 of 4
1
reach an agreement on all discovery sought by Mr. Wynn, Mr. Wynn will file a Rule 56(d) motion
2
with the Court on the disputed discovery.
3
9.
To provide sufficient time for the Parties to brief and the Court to issue a decision
4
on any Rule 56(d) motion, the deadline for Mr. Wynn to file his response to the anti-SLAPP Motion
5
is extended as follows: (a) if the Court grants all or part of the Rule 56(d) motion, on the date set
6
by the Court's order; or (b) if the Court denies the Rule 56(d) motion in its entirety, within fourteen
7
(14) days after entry of the Court's order.
8
10.
If, however, the Parties are able to agree upon the limited discovery Mr. Wynn may
among other things, sets forth the stipulated discovery, sets a deadline to complete this discovery,
11
and establishes a reasonable briefing scheduling for Mr. Wynn's response to the anti-SLAPP
12
10001 Park Run Drive
Las Vegas, NV 89145
702.786.1001
conduct, the Parties will submit a stipulation and proposed order to the Court for approval, which,
10
PETERSON BAKER, PLLC
9
Motion and the Bloom Defendants' reply in support of the anti-SLAPP Motion.
13
11.
In order to "secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination" (see Fed. R.
14
Civ. P. 1) of the anti-SLAPP Motion and consistent with NRS 41.660(3)(e), a partial stay of
15
discovery is appropriate. In this regard, the Parties' obligation to hold a Rule 26(f) conference,
16
submit a stipulated discovery plan and scheduling order pursuant to Local Rule 26-1(a), and
17
commence discovery is stayed pending a decision by the Court on the anti-SLAPP Motion, except
18
for limited discovery stipulated to by the Parties and/or permitted by the Court in response to any
19
Rule 56(d) motion filed by Mr. Wynn.
20
12.
Pending the filing of and decision on any Rule 56(d) motion, the Bloom Defendants
21
will permit Mr. Wynn to engage in certain agreed upon discovery concerning the facts raised by
22
the anti-SLAPP Motion.
23
13.
In light of the foregoing, the Parties submit that good cause exists for the Court to
24
approve this Stipulation, and respectfully request that, as set forth herein, the Court extend the time
25
//
26
//
27
//
28
3
Case 2:18-cv-00609-JCM-GWF Document 25 Filed 05/31/18 Page 4 of 4
1
2
for Mr. Wynn to file his response to the anti-SLAPP Motion.
Respectfully submitted this 29th day of May, 2018.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
10001 Park Run Drive
Las Vegas, NV 89145
702.786.1001
PETERSON BAKER, PLLC
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
PETERSON BAKER, PLLC
RANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP, PLLC
By:_/s/ Nikki L. Baker________________
TAMARA BEATTY PETERSON ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 5218
tpeterson@petersonbaker.com
NIKKI L. BAKER, ESQ., Bar No. 6562
nbaker@petersonbaker.com
PETERSON BAKER, PLLC
10001 Park Run Drive
Las Vegas, NV 89145
Telephone: 702.786.1001
Facsimile: 702.786.1002
By:_/s/ Alex J. Shepard_______________
MARC J. RANDAZZA, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 12265
RONALD D. GREEN, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 7360
ALEX J. SHEPARD, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 13582
2764 Lake Sahara Drive, Suite 109
Las Vegas, Nevada 89117
Telephone: 702.420.2001
Facsimile: 305.437.7662
ecf@randazza.com
L. LIN WOOD, ESQ.
(Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
lwood@linwoodlaw.com
NICOLE JENNINGS WADE, ESQ.
(Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
nwade@linwoodlaw.com
G. TAYLOR WILSON, ESQ.
(Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
twilson@linwoodlaw.com
L. LIN WOOD, P.C.
1180 West Peachtree Street, Suite 2400
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Telephone: 404.891.1402
Facsimile: 404.506.9111
Attorneys for Defendants Lisa Bloom
and The Bloom Firm
Attorneys for Plaintiff Steve Wynn
IT IS SO ORDERED.
21
22
23
____________________________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE/DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
June 1, 2018
DATED: _______________________
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?