Happ v. Reno Disposal Co. et el

Filing 75

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS - Motion Hearing held on 6/10/2015 before Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb. Crtrm Administrator: Katie Lynn Ogden; Pla Counsel: Karl P. Happ, Pro Se (Telephonically); Def Counsel: Elia M. DeLuca (Telephonical ly); FTR #: 10:01:38 a.m. - 10:18:56 a.m.; Time of Hearing: 10:00 a.m.; Courtroom: 2. The court discusses with Plaintiff and Defendants' counsel the rationale for a discovery stay. The court does not find there are suff icient grounds to stay discovery in its entirety. Nevertheless, the court extends the discovery deadlines to allow the parties the opportunity to delay undertaking any expensive discovery, if they so choose. The revised deadlines are as follows: < u>Discovery Cut-Off: Monday, 11/30/2015; Dispositive Motions:Wednesday, 12/30/2015; Joint Pretrial Order:Friday, 1/29/2016. See attached order for additional deadlines. The parties 69 "Unopposed Emerg ency Motion to stay Discovery and Motion Deadlines Pending the Court's Ruling on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to LR 7-5, FRCP Rules 16 and 26" is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
KARL P. HAPP,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
RENO DISPOSAL CO., et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

3:13-cv-00467-MMD-WGC
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
June 10, 2015

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE WILLIAM G. COBB, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEPUTY CLERK:

Katie Lynn Ogden

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF:

REPORTER:

FTR

Karl P. Happ, Pro Se (Telephonically)

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS:

Elia M. DeLuca, Esq. (Telephonically)

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS: Motion Hearing
10:01 a.m. Court convenes.
The court convenes to address the parties’ “Unopposed Emergency Motion to Stay Discovery
and Motion Deadlines Pending the Court’s Ruling on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to
LR 7-5, FRCP Rules 16 and 26" (Doc. # 69).
The court discusses with Plaintiff and Defendants’ counsel the rationale for a discovery stay.
Plaintiff, now proceeding pro se, indicates that certain written discovery responses are ready to be
produced to the Defendants; however, Plaintiff explains this has not occurred in light of the recent
withdrawal of his attorney (Doc. # 73). Plaintiff, who now resides in the Seattle area, has been
unsuccessful searching for replacement counsel. Plaintiff expresses no objection to the request for
stay of discovery at this time, as he states it would be difficult and expensive for him to participate
in discovery.
Counsel for Defendants states that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 52) remains
outstanding. Counsel argues the nature and scope of any additional discovery which might have to
be undertaken would be difficult to frame at this time because the decision as to the motion to
dismiss will likely impact the scope of the case. Counsel contends that the amended complaint (Doc.
# 49) which was filed after the court granted the Defendants’ initial motion to dismiss (Doc. # 12)
1

Minutes of Proceedings
3:13-cv-00467-MMD-WGC
June 10, 2015
is subject to the same infirmities as the initial complaint and in counsel’s viewpoint, will likely be
granted.
Counsel states the parties have engaged in the less expensive discovery but any additional
discovery will likely involve widespread medical discovery, retention of expert witnesses, etc.
Counsel seeks to defer this discovery until after the ruling on the pending motion to dismiss has been
entered.
Despite the somewhat convincing arguments made by Plaintiff and counsel, the court does
not find there are sufficient grounds to stay discovery in its entirety. Nevertheless, the court extends
the discovery deadlines to allow the parties the opportunity to delay undertaking any expensive
discovery, if they so choose.
The court revises the deadlines as follows:
Discovery Cut-Off: Monday, November 30, 2015;
Expert Witness Disclosure: Wednesday, September 30, 2015;
Rebuttal Expert Witness Disclosure: Friday, October 30, 2015;
Dispositive Motions: Wednesday, December 30, 2015;
Joint Pretrial Order: Friday, January 29, 2016 - unless, in the event dispositive
motions are filed, the date for filing the joint pretrial order shall be suspended until
thirty (30) days after decision of the dispositive motions or further order of the court.
The court clarifies for the record that the revised dates apply to all discovery, including
discovery that has already been served.
Therefore, the parties’ “Unopposed Emergency Motion to Stay Discovery and Motion
Deadlines Pending the Court’s Ruling on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to LR 7-5, FRCP
Rules 16 and 26" (Doc. # 69) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
10:18 a.m. Court adjourns.

LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK
By:

2

/s/
Katie Lynn Ogden, Deputy Clerk