Braxton vs Clark County School District, et al.,

Filing 65

ORDER Granting 64 Stipulation to Stay Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maximiliano D. Couvillier, III on 3/26/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - RJDG)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Suite 600, Las Vegas, Nevada 89135,
Telephone: [phone] / Facsimile: [phone]

10

MARK E. FERRARIO
Nevada Bar No. 01625
KARA B. HENDRICKS
Nevada Bar No. 07743
CHRISTIAN T. SPAULDING
Nevada Bar No. 14277
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89135
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Counsel for Defendants, Clark County School
District, Jesus Jara, Michelle Brown, Kody Barto
and Gayle Orvedal

11
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

14
15

ELAINE BRAXTON, individually and as natural
parent and guardian of D.N., a minor,
Plaintiff,

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

v.
CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT; a
Political Subdivision of the State of Nevada,
JESUS F. JARA, in his individual and official
capacity; KODY BARTO, in his individual and
official capacity; GAYLE ORVEDAL, in her
individual and official capacity, MICHELLE
BROWN, in her individual and official capacity;
DOES I through X; and ROE CORPORATIONS
I through X, inclusive,
Defendants.

23
24
25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
ACTIVE 696154454v2

1

CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00144-JAD-MDC
STIPULATION TO STAY
DISCOVERY
(FIRST REQUEST)

1

Plaintiff, Elaine Braxton, individually and as natural parent and guardian of D.N., and

2

Defendants Clark County School District (“CCSD”), Jesus Jara (“Jara”), Kody Barto (“Barto”),

3

Gayle Orvedal (“Orvedal”), and Michelle Brown (“Brown”) (referred collectively herein as

4

“CCSD Defendants” or “Defendants”), by and through their attorneys hereby stipulate to stay

5

certain discovery given that a dispute between the parties has arisen relating to what Defendants’

6

perceive as conflict of interest. As detailed below, the parties have been working through issues

7

relating to depositions in light of the current discovery deadline of March 22, 2024. However,

8

because of the perceived conflict, discovery is at a standstill and Defendants filed a Motion to

9

Disqualify on March 20, 2024 (the “Motion to Disqualify”) (ECF No. 61) to address the same.

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Suite 600, Las Vegas, Nevada 89135,
Telephone: [phone] / Facsimile: [phone]

10

I.

RELEVANT BACKGROUND REGARDING DISCOVERY DEADLINES

11

On or about April 4, 2023, the parties submitted their proposed Stipulated Discovery

12

Plan and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 17), which the Court granted and denied in part on April 6,

13

2023 (ECF No. 17).

14
15
16
17

On or about April 14, 2023, the parties exchanged Initial Disclosures in accordance with
the Scheduling Order.
On or about April 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed its Amended Complaint and Jury Demand
(ECF No. 24).

18

On or about May 4, 2023, the Parties submitted a joint stipulation and proposed order for

19

filing of Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 30), which the Court granted on May 5, 2023

20

(ECF No. 31).

21

On or about May 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed its Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 32).

22

On or about May 31, 2023, CCSD Defendants filed their Answer to Second Amended

23

Complaint (ECF No. 34).

24

With the resulting delay of the Amended Complaints and the time taken for CCSD

25

Defendants to prepare an Answer, the discovery and expert deadlines did not provide enough

26

time to retain and prepare experts. The Parties therefore, on or about June 5, 2023, submitted

27

their proposed Stipulation to Extend Discovery (First Request) (ECF No. 35), which the Court

28

granted on June 5, 2023 (ECF No. 36).
ACTIVE 696154454v2

2

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Suite 600, Las Vegas, Nevada 89135,
Telephone: [phone] / Facsimile: [phone]

1

On or about June 29, 2023, Plaintiff filed its Motion to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 37),

2

CCSD Defendants filed their response in opposition on or about June 29, 2023 (ECF No. 38),

3

and Plaintiff replied on or about August 7, 2023. The Court subsequently granted Plaintiff’s

4

Motion to Amend Complaint on or about November 8th (ECF No. 49).

5

On or about September 21, 2023, the Parties submitted a joint request for settlement

6

conference (ECF No. 42), which the Court granted on September 26, 2023 (ECF No. 43). The

7

settlement conference was scheduled for November 8th (ECF No. 44). Due to a conflict with the

8

Court’s calendar, the settlement conference was continued from November 8th to January 12 1,

9

2024 (ECF Nos. 47 & 48).

10

As the settlement conference was initially scheduled for November 8th, two days after

11

the governing close of discovery deadline (ECF No. 36), the Parties submitted, on or about

12

October 23, 2023, their proposed Stipulation and Order to Extend Discovery (Second Request)

13

(ECF No. 45). The Court granted it on or about October 24, 2023 (ECF No. 46).

14

As the rescheduled settlement conference date January 12th fell only 10 days ahead of the

15

governing discovery deadline (ECF No. 46), the Parties submitted, on or about November 14,

16

2023, their proposed Stipulation and Order to Extend Discovery (Third Request) (ECF No. 50).

17

The Court granted it on or about November 15, 2023 (ECF No. 52).

18

On or about November 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed its Third Amended Complaint

19

(ECF No. 51) which Defendants answered on November 28, 20023 (ECF No. 54).

20

II.

DISCOVERY COMPLETED

21

Disclosures

22

On December 6, 2023, Plaintiff served their third supplemental disclosures, with the first

23

served on or about August 3, 2023, and the second served on or about October 13, 2023.

24

On February 7, 2024, CCSD Defendants served their fourth supplemental disclosures,

25

with the first supplemental served on or about September 29, 2023, the second supplemental

26

served on or about October 6, 2023, and the third supplemental served October 18, 2023.

27
28

1

The Parties were unable to settle the matter at the January 12th settlement conference.

ACTIVE 696154454v2

3

1

Written Discovery

2

On or about August 16, 2023, CCSD Defendants served their first set of requests for

3

production of documents on DN; on or about October 2, 2023, Plaintiff served its responses

4

thereto.

5
6

On or about August 16, 2023, CCSD Defendants served their first set of interrogatories
on DN; on or about October 2, 2023, Plaintiff served its responses thereto.

7

On or about August 21, 2023, Plaintiff served their first set of requests for production of

8

documents on CCSD; on or about October 6, 2023, CCSD Defendants served their responses

9

thereto and on October 18, 2023, followed with service of their amended responses.

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Suite 600, Las Vegas, Nevada 89135,
Telephone: [phone] / Facsimile: [phone]

10
11

On or about August 21, 2023, Plaintiff served their first set of interrogatories on CCSD;
on or about October 6, 2023, CCSD Defendants served their response thereto.

12

Expert Reports

13

On or about September 19, 2023, Plaintiff served its Initial Designation of Expert

14

Witnesses and Reports.

15

On or about October 20, 2023, CCSD Defendants served their Rebuttal Expert Disclosure

16

Pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(2).

17

III.

DISCOVERY THAT REMAINS TO BE COMPLETED

18

Plaintiff and CCSD Defendants have noticed party depositions but have not yet taken

19

any due to the issues addressed in Defendants’ Motion to Disqualify. Additionally, the Parties

20

intend to take expert depositions. The following depositions have been noticed by each party to

21

date:

22

1.

Jesus Jara (noticed by Plaintiff) 2

23

2.

Kody Barto (noticed by Plaintiff)

24

3.

Gayle Orvedal (noticed by Plaintiff)

25

4.

Michealle Brown (noticed by Plaintiff)

26

5.

Elaine Braxton (noticed by CCSD Defendants)

27
28

Defendants have objected to the deposition of Dr. Jara and the parties have agreed to further meet and
confer regarding the same.

2

ACTIVE 696154454v2

4

1

6.

D.N. (a minor) (noticed by CCSD Defendants) 3

2

7.

Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Billie-Jo Grant (noticed by CCSD Defendants)

3

8.

Plaintiff’s expert, Michael Elliott (noticed by CCSD Defendants)

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Suite 600, Las Vegas, Nevada 89135,
Telephone: [phone] / Facsimile: [phone]

4

IV.

REASONS TO STAY DISCOVERY

5

As is discussed in the briefing of the Motion to Disqualify, the parties have met and

6

conferred in an attempt to reach a resolution regarding what Defendants believe is a conflict of

7

interest. Specifically, attorney Fikisha Miller recently joined H&P Law, counsel of record for

8

Plaintiff. Ms. Miller was formerly employed by CCSD as Chief Negotiator and Assistant

9

General Counsel and CCSD believes there is a conflict of interest that prohibits Ms. Miller’s

10

involvement in this matter. Counsel for Plaintiff do not believe there is a conflict of interest.

11

Notwithstanding, because Ms. Miller was scheduled to take and defend noticed deposition in

12

this matter, the parties have agreed to vacate the depositions pending a ruling by the Court on

13

the conflict/disqualification issue. Therefore, the parties stipulate and agree to the following:

14

1.

Plaintiff and CCSD Defendants have noticed party depositions and expert

15

depositions. However, the conflict issue discussed above cannot be resolved without Court

16

involvement and prohibits discovery from moving forward at this time. Accordingly, the Parties

17

agree to stay all further discovery, including depositions of the Parties and experts, until the court

18

rules on the Motion to Disqualify.

19

2.

The Parties agree to amend the Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order

20

to allow discovery to extend beyond the current deadline of March 22, 2024. The new deadline

21

for discovery will be sixty (60) days after the Court rules on the Motion to Disqualify.

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27
28

Plaintiff has objected to the deposition of D.N. and the parties have agreed to further meet and confer
regarding the same.

3

ACTIVE 696154454v2

5

1

commence the previously noticed depositions to complete discovery within the agreed upon sixty

3

(60) days, and work together in good faith to accommodate schedules, as needed.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.

5

DATED this 22nd day of March 2024

DATED this 22nd day of March 2024.

6

H&P LAW

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

7

/s/ Marjorie Hauf

/s/ Kara B. Hendricks

8
9
10

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

Once a ruling on the Motion to Disqualify is issued, the Parties will promptly

2

4

10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Suite 600, Las Vegas, Nevada 89135,
Telephone: [phone] / Facsimile: [phone]

3.

11
12

MARJORIE L. HAUF, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 08111
MATTHEW G. PFAU, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 11439
710 S Ninth Street
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Counsel for Plaintiff, Elaine Braxton as
natural parent and guardian of D.N., a
minor

MARK E. FERRARIO
Nevada Bar No. 01625
KARA B. HENDRICKS
Nevada Bar No. 07743
CHRISTIAN T. SPAULDING
Nevada Bar No. 14277
10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89135
Counsel for Defendants, Clark County
School District, Jesus Jara, Michelle
Brown, Kody Barto and Gayle Orvedal

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18
___________________________
Maximiliano D. Couvillier III
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: 3-26-24

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ACTIVE 696154454v2

6