Bobadilla v. State of Nevada, ex rel. its Department of Probation and Parole, et al.,

Filing 23

ORDER granting 22 Stipulation to Stay Discovery as to Plaintiff April Bobadilla and Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts on 11/14/2023. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - CT)

1
2
3
4

E. BRENT BRYSON, LTD.
E. BRENT BRYSON, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 004933
375 E. Warm Springs Road, Suite 104
Las Vegas, Nevada 89119
[phone] Telephone
[phone] Facsimile
[e-mail]

5
6

Attorney for Plaintiff,
April Bobadilla

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8
9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA
APRIL BOBADILLA, an individual,
Case No.: 2:23-cv-00723-GMN-DJA

10

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

STATE OF NEVADA, ex rel. its DEPARTMENT
OF PROBATION AND PAROLE; DOE
DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION AND PAROLE
SUPERVISORS I through X, inclusive; and ROE
DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION AND PAROLE
EMPLOYEES XI through XV, inclusive; LAS
VEGAS
METROPOLITAN
POLICE
DEPARTMENT, a political subdivision of the State
of Nevada; DOE LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN
POLICE DEPARTMENT SUPERVISORS I through
X, inclusive; ROE LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN
POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICERS XI through
XV, inclusive;

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

JOINT STIPULATION TO
STAY DISCOVERY AS TO
PLAINTIFF APRIL
BOBADILLA AND
DEFENDANT LAS VEGAS
METROPOLITAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT

Defendants.
Pursuant to Local Rules LR 7-1 and IA 6-2, Plaintiff APRIL BOBADILLA (hereinafter
“Bobadilla”) and Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (hereinafter “LVMPD”),
hereby stipulate and agree to stay discovery as to Bobadilla and LVMPD in this case pending
resolution of the pending Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant the State of Nevada ex rel.
Department of Public Safety, Division of Parole and Probation (hereinafter “NPP”) (ECF No. 12).
The parties submit that good cause exists for this stipulation to be granted to avoid wasting the
parties’ and this Court’s time, as well as unnecessarily incurring duplicative fees and costs.

28

1

1

I.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

2

Here, on October 4, 2023, a Joint Stipulation to Stay Discovery as to Nevada Division of

3

Parole and Probation Pending Resolution of Motion to Dismiss was entered. That Joint Stipulation

4

stayed discovery as to Nevada Division of Parole and Probation (“NPP”) only, pending resolution

5

of NPP’s Motion to Dismiss. Although that motion does not address Bobadilla’s causes of action

6

against LVMPD, if the Motion is denied, any discovery completed between Bobadilla and

7

LVMPD prior to resolution of the Motion will potentially need to be duplicated with NPP’s

8

participation.

9

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

10

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), and the Court's inherent authority and

11

discretion to manage its own docket, this Court has the authority to grant the requested stay.

12

Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b) (“When an act may or must be done within a specified time the court may, for

13

good cause, extend the time....”). A stipulation to stay proceedings, like the Parties seek here, is an

14

appropriate exercise of this Court's jurisdiction. See Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-255

15

(1936) (explaining a court's power to stay proceedings is incidental to its inherent power to control

16

the disposition of the cases on its docket to save the time and effort of the court, counsel, and the

17

parties).

18

Furthermore, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c) and 26(d) also vest the Court with

19

authority to limit the scope of discovery or control its sequence and may grant a stay to allow

20

parties to negotiate a settlement. See Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598.

21

When evaluating a request to stay discovery, the court initially considers the goal of Federal

22

Rule of Civil Procedure 1, which states that the Rules “should be construed, administered, and

23

employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of

24

every action.” Sanchez v. Windhaven Nat'l Ins. Co., 2:19-cv-02196-RFB-VCF, 2020 WL 3489333

25

(D. Nev. 2020). Whether to grant a stay is within the discretion of the court, particularly where, as

26

here, a stay would promote judicial economy and efficiency. See e.g. Crawford-El v. Britton, 523

27

U.S. 574, 598 (1998); CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) (district courts possess

28

“inherent power to control the disposition of the causes on its docket in a manner which will
2

1

promote economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants”);” and Munoz-Santana

2

v. U.S. I.N.S., 742 F.2d 561, 562 (9th Cir. 1984).

3

III.

A STAY IS WARRANTED PENDING RESOLUTION OF NPP’S MOTION TO

4

DISMISS AND LIFTING OF THE DISCOVERY STAY AS BETWEEN

5

BOBADILLA AND NPP.

6

As stated above, the Court should construe the Rules “to secure the just, speedy, and

7

inexpensive determination of every action.” Sanchez, 2020 WL 3489333 at *2. Here, the Parties

8

agree that it is in the best interest of all Parties, as well as the Court, to stay discovery and

9

proceedings pending the outcome of NPP’s Motion to Dismiss. The parties seek to stay discovery

10

to avoid incurring attorney’s fees, expert fees, and costs which will require duplication in the event

11

NPP’s Motion to Dismiss is denied.

12
13

DATED this 7th day of November, 2023.

DATED this 7th day of November, 2023.

E. BRENT BRYSON, LTD.

MARQUIS AURBACH

/s/ E. Brent Bryson, Esq.
E. BRENT BRYSON, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 004933
375 E. Warm Springs Road, Suite 104
Las Vegas, Nevada 89119
[phone] Telephone
[phone] Facsimile
[e-mail]
Attorney for Plaintiff,
April Bobadilla

/s/ Nick D. Crosby, Esq.
Nick D. Crosby, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 008996
10001 Park Run Drive
Las Vegas, Nevada 89145
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant LVMPD

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

1
2

ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED. Discovery in this matter is stayed as to Plaintiff April Bobadilla

3

and Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department pending the Court’s ruling on the

4

pending Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 12).

5
6

____________________________________
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8

11/14/2023
Dated: ______________________________

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4