Boskovich v. Nye County District Attorney's Office et al

Filing 14

ORDER Granting 13 Motion to Stay Discovery. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a stipulated discovery plan and scheduling order within 14 days of an Order on 6 the pending motion to dismiss. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts on 7/15/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1
2
3
4

REBECCA BRUCH, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 7289
LEMONS, GRUNDY & EISENBERG
6005 Plumas Street, Third Floor
Reno, Nevada 89519
[phone]; [phone] (fax)
Email: [e-mail]

5
6

Attorney for Defendant Nye County

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10

Case No: 2:21-cv-00670-JAD-DJA

RONNI BOSKOVICH,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

JOINT AND UNOPPOSED
MOTION TO STAY
DISCOVERY

v.
NYE COUNTY, a political subdivision, and
municipality including its department, NYE
COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S
OFFICE; CHRIS ARABIA, in his individual
and official capacity; LEO BLUNDO, in his
individual and official capacity; DOES I-50;
and ROE CORPORATIONS I-50,

14
15
16
17
18

Defendants.

19
20

The parties through their counsel of record, Michael Balaban, Esq., on behalf of

21

Plaintiff Ronni Boskovich (“Boskovich”); Brian Hardy, Esq., of Marquis Aurbach Coffing,

22

on behalf of Nye County District Attorney Chris Arabia (“Arabia”) and Nye County

23

Commissioner Leo Blundo (“Blundo”); and Rebecca Bruch, Esq., of Lemons, Grundy &

24

Eisenberg, on behalf of Nye County (“the County”), do hereby file this Joint and

25

Unopposed Motion to Stay Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order.

26

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

27

The basis for this Joint and Unopposed Motion to Stay Discovery is two-fold: First,

28

Boskovich admittedly has filed this complaint before she has exhausted her administrative

LEMONS, GRUNDY
& EISENBERG
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

6005 PLUMAS STREET
THIRD FLOOR
RENO, NV 89519-6069
[phone]

1

Case 2:21-cv-00670-JAD-DJA Document 13 Filed 07/14/21 Page 2 of 5

1

remedies. According to Boskovich, she did so in order to preserve the statute of limitations

2

on her other claims. More specifically, she has not yet received a right-to-sue letter

3

regarding the three Title VII claims she has brought. Second, Defendants Blundo and

4

Arabia have filed a Motion to Dismiss that could be dispositive on all claims against them.

5

The parties bring this motion jointly and without opposition.

6

I.

Introduction

7

On December 2, 2020, Boskovich filed a Charge of Discrimination with the

8

Nevada Equal Rights Commission (“NERC”) and the Equal Employment Opportunity

9

Commission (“EEOC”).

Boskovich must exhaust her administrative remedies before she

10

can file a lawsuit. Until she receives a right-to-sue letter addressing those claims brought

11

under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, litigation cannot be brought.

12

See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e05(f)(1). As is her right, Boskovich has requested her EEOC file be

13

closed without a finding, and that a right-to-sue letter be issued. She avers in her Complaint

14

that she has not received a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC. ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 14-15. As

15

of the filing of this Motion, she has not received a right-to-sue letter.

16

In Boskovich’s Complaint filed April 22, 2021, she asserted 10 causes of action

17

related to her termination from the Nye County District Attorney’s Office. ECF No. 1.

18

Those claims are:

19

1. Sex/Gender Discrimination in Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

20

2. Hostile Environment Sexual Harassment in Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights

21

Act

22

3. Retaliation in Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

23

4. Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy

24

5. Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Equal Protection

25

6. Breach of Implied-In-Fact Contract

26

7. Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Delaing

27

8. Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage

28

9. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

LEMONS, GRUNDY
& EISENBERG
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

6005 PLUMAS STREET
THIRD FLOOR
RENO, NV 89519-6069
[phone]

2

Case 2:21-cv-00670-JAD-DJA Document 13 Filed 07/14/21 Page 3 of 5

1

10. Defamation

2

In response, on June 2, 2021, Blundo and Arabia filed a Motion to Dismiss all causes

3

of action pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6). ECF No. 6.

4

The County filed its Answer on June

28, 2021. ECF No. 11.

5

Blundo and Arabia argue in their Motion to Dismiss, in addition to the failure to

6

exhaust administrative remedies, that the Complaint should be dismissed because (1)

7

Boskovich has failed to state a viable § 1983 claim against Blundo and Arabia; (2)

8

Boskovich did not allege facts which are plausibly suggestive of a claim for intentional

9

interference with prospective economic advantage against Blundo and Arabia; (3)

10

Boskovich failed to plead a plausible claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress

11

against Blundo and Arabia; and (4) Boskovich’s defamation claim against Blundo and

12

Arabia fails because it is based wholly on speculation. ECF No. 6. Blundo and Arabia

13

also argue Boskovich should not be allowed to amend her complaint as against them.

14

Blundo and Arabia allege the claims made by Boskovich involve bad faith, harassment, or

15

a dilatory motive. Id.

16

On June 16, 2021, Boskovich opposed the Motion to Dismiss, primarily arguing she

17

has met her burden under Iqbal and Twombly. ECF No. 11. Boskovich further argues

18

that even if the Court grants the Blundo and Arabia motion, she should have leave to amend

19

the complaint.

20

II.

Legal Argument

21

Courts have broad discretionary power to control discovery. See, e.g., Little v. City

22

of Seattle, 863 F.2s 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). The party seeking a stay of discovery carries

23

the heavy burden of making a strong showing why discovery should be denied. See

24

Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D.Nev.2011). In this case all parties

25

agree discovery should be stayed.

26

Evaluation of a request for a stay often requires a “preliminary peek” at a pending

27

dispositive motion. This “preliminary peek” is not intended to prejudge the outcome, but

28

to evaluate the propriety of a stay of discovery with the goal of accomplishing the

LEMONS, GRUNDY
& EISENBERG
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

6005 PLUMAS STREET
THIRD FLOOR
RENO, NV 89519-6069
[phone]

3

Case 2:21-cv-00670-JAD-DJA Document 13 Filed 07/14/21 Page 4 of 5

1

objectives of Rule 1, which requires construing the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in a

2

manner to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action. See

3

Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 601. In doing so, a court must consider whether the preliminary

4

peek at the merits is potentially dispositive of the entire case, and whether the motion can

5

be decided without additional discovery. Id. at 602-603.

6

The parties agree that a temporary stay of discovery, including the procedural

7

requirements of FRCP Rule 26, and completion of a discovery plan and scheduling order,

8

will further the goal of judicial economy as well as reducing the costs to the parties in the

9

event the Motion to Dismiss is granted in whole or in part. They do not believe discovery

10

is necessary for the Court to decide the pending motion. In addition, it is without question

11

that Boskovich cannot proceed with her three Title VII claims until she receives a right-to-

12

sue letter from the EEOC.

13

[Remainder of page left intentionally blank.]

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LEMONS, GRUNDY
& EISENBERG
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

6005 PLUMAS STREET
THIRD FLOOR
RENO, NV 89519-6069
[phone]

4

1

Based on the foregoing, the parties request that the Court grant this Joint and

2

Unopposed Motion to Stay Discovery pending Boskovich’s receipt of a right-to-sue letter

3

as well as the Court’s ruling on the pending Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Blundo

4

and Arabia.

5

DATED this 14th day of July, 2021.

6

LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL P. BALABAN

7

By:

8
9
10
11

LEMONS, GRUNDY & EISENBERG

12

By:

13
14
15
16

/s/ Rebecca Bruch
REBECCA BRUCH, ESQ. (SBN7289)
6005 Plumas St., Third Floor
Reno, Nevada 89519
Attorneys for Defendant Nye County

MARQUIS AURBACH COFFING

17

By:

18
19
20
21
22

/s/ Michael Balaban
MICHAEL P. BALABAN, ESQ.(SBN9370)
10726 Del Rubini Street
Las Vegas, NV 89141
Attorneys for Plaintiff

/s/ Brian Hardy
BRIAN R. HARDY, ESQ. (SBN10068)
KATHLEEN A. WILDE, ESQ (SBN12522)
10001 Park Run Drive
Las Vegas, Nevada 89145
Attorneys for Defendants
Chris Arabia and Leo Blundo

IT ORDERED.
IT IS SO IS SO ORDERED

23
24

This ___ day of _______, 2021.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a stipulated discovery plan and
scheduling order within 14 days of an Order on the pending motion to dismiss (ECF No. 6).

25
26

DATED this 15th day of July 2021.
_______________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

27
28
LEMONS, GRUNDY
& EISENBERG
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

6005 PLUMAS STREET
THIRD FLOOR
RENO, NV 89519-6069
[phone]

____________________________________
DANIEL J. ALBREGTS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
5