Blincoe v. Freud America, Inc.

Filing 12

ORDER granting ECF No. 11 Stipulation to Stay Discovery deadlines, Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 8/3/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

Case 3:18-cv-00200-HDM-WGC Document 11 Filed 08/02/18 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

ROBERT S. LARSEN, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 7785
DAVID T. GLUTH, II, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 10596
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
300 South Fourth Street, Suite 1550
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Telephone: [phone]
Direct: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Freud America, Inc.

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

11
300 S. 4th Street, Suite 1550
Las Vegas, NV 89101

Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP

10

12
13
14
15
16

ALEX BLINCOE, an individual resident of Washoe )
County, State of Nevada;
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
vs.
)
)
FREUD AMERICA, INC., a North Carolina
Corporation; ROE ENTITIES 1 – 10; and DOES 1 – )
)
10;
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No.: 3:18-cv-00200-HDM-WGC
JOINT STIPULATION AND
ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY
(FIRST REQUEST)

17
18

Plaintiff ALEX BLINCOE (“Plaintiff”), by and through its attorneys of record, Patrick

19

Millsap, Esq. of Wallace & Millsap, LLC, and Defendant FREUD AMERICA, INC.

20

(“Defendant”), by and through its attorneys of record, Gordon Rees, LLP, hereby stipulate and

21

agree to stay discovery in order to complete mediation pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

22

Procedure 26(c) and Local Rule 7-1 as follows:

23

1.

This is a products liability case where Plaintiff alleges that metal cut-off wheel

24

“exploded causing a piece of the wheel to fly under Plaintiff’s glasses into his left eye.” (ECF

25

No.1-2, ¶9). Plaintiff alleges he suffered “severe injury to his left eye requiring extensive

26

operations and procedures to repair the damage.” (ECF No.1-2, ¶ 10). Plaintiff alleges he “will

27

be permanently and legally blind in his left eye for the entirety of this life.”( ECF No.1-2, ¶ 11).

28

-1-

Case 3:18-cv-00200-HDM-WGC Document 11 Filed 08/02/18 Page 2 of 4

1

2.

The parties have been actively engaging in discovery. Defendant propounded

Plaintiff has undergone extensive medical treatment related to this accident. On July 13, 2018,

4

Defendant subpoenaed medical records from Renown Hospital, Sierra Eye Associates, Northern

5

Nevada Medical Center, UC Davis Health Systems and Nevada Eye Consultants. Defendant has

6

received responses from some but not all of the medical providers and is still gathering those

7

records. On July 25, 2018, Defendant sent a second subpoena to Renown Hospital in order to

8

inspect the foreign body removed from the Plaintiff. Defendant noticed a Rule 34 inspection of

9

the tool that was being used and intends to inspect site where the accident happened. Defendant

10

has also noticed the deposition of Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s wife for August 28, 2018. Defendant

11
300 S. 4th Street, Suite 1550
Las Vegas, NV 89101

written discovery on Plaintiff and responses are currently due on or about August 16, 2018.

3

Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP

2

intends to complete the inspections and depositions.

12

3.

Since the initial Rule 26 conference on June 1, 2018, the parties continued to

13

confer about possibility of resolution including alternative dispute resolution with a private

14

mediator. On July 23, 2018, the parties agreed to mediate after the completion of the above-

15

referenced discovery. On July 28, 2018, the parties agreed to mediate with retired Judge Brent

16

Adams. The mediation is scheduled for October 16, 2018. This is the first available date for all

17

parties and the mediator.

18

4.

The Joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order was entered on June 22, 2018.

19

(ECF No. 9). The current deadline for initial expert’s reports is September 6, 2018. Id. The

20

current close of discovery is set for November 5, 2018. Id.

21

5.

The parties agree that it is in the best interest of all parties to await the completion

22

of mediation before incurring the time and expense of additional discovery beyond the pending

23

discovery identified in paragraph 2, including the expense associated with disclosing experts and

24

producing expert reports. Additionally, because of the nature of this case, it is anticipated that

25

several experts will be needed including liability and medical experts.

26
27
28

6.

Federal district courts have “wide discretion in controlling discovery.” Little v.

City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
-2-

Case 3:18-cv-00200-HDM-WGC Document 11 Filed 08/02/18 Page 3 of 4

1

26(c), this Court may make any order which justice requires “to protect a party or person from

2

annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden or expense…” See also Turner

3

Broadcasting Sys. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997) (holding that

4

“[w]hether to grant a stay is within the discretion of the Court…”).

5

7.

Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the federal rules of

6

practice should be “construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive

7

determination of every action and proceeding.” The parties agree that it would be burdensome

8

to have the parties incur the expense of time-consuming and costly discovery prior to completing

9

mediation which may cause impediment to settlement. The Ninth Circuit has further noted that it
is firmly “committed to the rule that the law favors and encourages compromise settlements.”

11
300 S. 4th Street, Suite 1550
Las Vegas, NV 89101

Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP

10

United States v. McInnes, 556 F. 2d 436, 441 (9th Cir. 1977).

12

8.

Staying any additional discovery beyond the pending discovery identified in

13

paragraph 2, in this case is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Federal Rules of Civil

14

Procedure. If a stay is not granted, the parties will be required to engage in and incur the costs of

15

discovery which may not be necessary if the case settles.

16

///

17
18

///

19
20

///

21
22

///

23
24

///

25
26

///

27
28

-3-

Case 3:18-cv-00200-HDM-WGC Document 11 Filed 08/02/18 Page 4 of 4

1

9.

In order to preserve the parties’ resources, and to allow meaningful mediation, the

2

parties have agreed, subject to the Court’s approval, to stay any additional discovery beyond the

3

pending discovery identified in paragraph 2, including the deadline to disclose initial expert and

4

disclose reports, until after the completion of the mediation on October 16, 2018. The parties

5

further agree to vacate the current discovery deadlines and stipulate that they will submit a

6

proposed discovery plan and scheduling order to reopen discovery seven (7) days after the

7

completion of the mediation, if this case does not resolve.

8
9

11
300 S. 4th Street, Suite 1550
Las Vegas, NV 89101

Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP

10

12
13
14
15

DATED: August 2nd , 2018.

DATED: August 2nd

, 2018.

WALLACE & MILLSAP, LLC

GORDON & REES LLP

/s/Patrick R. Millsap
F. McClure Wallace, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 10264
Patrick R. Millsap, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 12043
510 W. Plumb Lane, Suite A
Reno, NV 89509

/s/ David T. Gluth
Robert S. Larsen, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 7785
David T. Gluth, II, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 10596
300 S. 4th Street, Suite 1550
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Attorneys for Defendant

16
17
18
19

ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22

DATED:

23
24
25
26
27
28

-4-

August 3, 2018