Vickers v. Godecki ( 2021 )

Attorney General 2 KATLYN M. BRADY (Bar No. 14173) Senior Deputy Attorney General 3 State of Nevada Office of the Attorney General 4 555 E. Washington Ave., Ste. 3900 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 5 (702) 486-0661 (phone) (702) 486-3773 (fax) 6 Email: katlynbrady@ag.nv.gov 7 Attorneys for Defendants Pamela Del Porto, Harold Wickham, 8 Charles Daniels, Tara Carpenter, Romeo Aranas, and Renee Baker 9 10 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 14 TRACY WAYNE VICKERS, Case No. 2:20-cv-01401-GMN-NJK 15 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO 16 v. STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY 17 HENRY GODECKI, et al., 18 Defendants. 19 Defendants, Pamela Del Porto, Harold Wickham, Charles Daniels, Tara Carpenter, 20 Romeo Aranas, and Renee Baker, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Nevada 21 Attorney General, and Katlyn M. Brady, Senior Deputy Attorney General, of the State of 22 Nevada, Office of the Attorney General, and plaintiff Tracy Vickers, by and through 23 counsel Travis Barrick, stipulate to stay discovery pending resolution of Defendants’ 24 motion to dismiss. ECF No. 14. 25 Plaintiff initiated this matter alleging several Nevada constitutional officers 26 negligently allowed an inmate access to a baseball bat, which he used to assault Plaintiff. 27 Defendants submitted a motion to dismiss, which seeks dismissal of all claims as a 28 matter of law. ECF No. 14. The parties met and agreed that a stay was warranted 2 Defendants were entitled to immunity.1 3 As stated below, good cause exists to stay discovery pending resolution of 4 Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 5 II. LEGAL ARGUMENT 6 A. Good Cause Exists To Impose A Stay 7 “[T]he Ninth Circuit has held that the purpose of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is to 8 enable a Defendant to challenge the legal sufficiency of a complaint without subjecting 9 itself to discovery.” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 602 (D. Nev. 2011). 10 The court will employ a two part test in determining whether to stay the discovery: (1) the pending motion must be potentially 11 dispositive of the entire case or at least dispositive of the issue on which discovery is sought, and (2) the court must determine 12 whether the pending potentially dispositive motion can be decided without additional discovery. 13 14 Ministerio Roca Solida v. U.S. Dep’t of Fish & Wildlife, 288 F.R.D. 500, 506 (D. Nev. 15 2013), see also Puckett v. Schnog, No. 2:12-CV-01958-GMN, 2013 WL 1874754, at *1 (D. 16 Nev. May 3, 2013), Rose v. Washtronics of Am., No. 213CV00568JADNJK, 2013 WL 17 12213348, at *1 (D. Nev. Aug. 15, 2013). 18 The Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss would be dispositive of all claims against them. 19 Furthermore, the Motion to Dismiss can be decided without additional discovery. 20 Accordingly, a stay of discovery should be imposed as to the state defendants. 21 B. The State Defendants Filed A Motion To Dismiss, Raising The Preliminary Issue Of Immunity 22 23 The Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss seeks dismissal of all claims asserted against 24 them. ECF No. 14. Furthermore, the Motion to Dismiss can be decided without 25 additional discovery, as the state defendants raised legal issues regarding sovereign 26 1 This Court previously denied the parties’ stipulation to stay discovery after 27 finding the parties failed to provide any legal authority for the proposed stay. ECF No. 21. Accordingly, the parties are resubmitting the stipulation with appropriate 28 authorities. 2 Motion to Dismiss does not present factual issues, but instead is premised on questions of 3 law, which would be dispositive of all claims against the judicial defendants. 4 The Defense Of Immunity Warrants A Stay 5 “[A] pending Motion to Dismiss is not ordinarily a situation that in and of itself 6 would warrant a stay of discovery. Common examples of such situations, however, occur 7 when jurisdiction, venue, or immunity are preliminary issues.” Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. 8 v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997), citing Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. 9 Employers Ins. of Wausau, 124 F.R.D. 652, 653 (D. Nev. 1989). Courts in the District of 10 Nevada often stay discovery when a dispositive motion raises an immunity defense. 11 Anoruo v. McDonald, No. 21:cv-00441-GMN-NJK. 2016 WL 3951410, at * 1 (D. Nev. 12 July 21, 2016) 13 “[D]iscovery should be stayed while dispositive motions are pending only when 14 there are no factual issues in need of further immediate exploration, and the issues before 15 the Court are purely questions of law that are potentially dispositive.” Ministerio Roca 16 Solida v. U.S. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, 288 F.R.D. 500, 506 (D. Nev. 2013). The court 17 employs a two-part test when determining if a stay is appropriate. Id. First, the court 18 determines whether the pending motion will be dispositive of the entire case. Id. 19 Second, the court must determine whether the pending dispositive motion can be 20 decided without additional discovery. Id. Here, Defendants present several questions of 21 law that can be decided without additional discovery. Specifically, Defendants raised two 22 distinct immunity defenses, sovereign immunity and qualified immunity. Further, 23 Defendants raised pure questions of law regarding whether the Nevada Constitution 24 creates a private cause of action and whether Plaintiff adequately pled an equal 25 protection claim. 26 III. CONCLUSION 27 This Court should stay discovery as to the state defendants pending resolution of 28 their Motion to Dismiss. 1 In the event the Court denies the Motion to Dismiss, the parties shall conduct a 2 ||case conference as required under FED. R. Civ. P. 26(f), no later than 14 days after the 3 Court issues its Order on the Motion to Dismiss, and will submit a discovery plan and 4 || scheduling order within 14 days of the conference. 5 This stipulation is executed in good faith and not for the purposes of delay. 6 || DATED this 6th day of May, 2021. DATED this 6th day of May, 2021. 7 AARON D. FORD Attorney General 9 || By: /s/_ Travis Barrick By:_/s/ Katlyn M. Brady TRAVIS BARRICK KATLYN M. BRADY (Bar No. 14173) 10 Gallian, Welker, & Beckstrom Senior Deputy Attorney General Attorney for Plaintiff Attorneys for Defendants 11 12 ORDER 13 The parties’ stipulation to stay discovery is GRANTED. In the event resolution of the pending 14 motion to dismiss, Docket No. 14, results in this case remaining open, the parties must submit a joint proposed discovery plan no later than 14 days after the issuance of the order resolving the 15 motion to dismiss. 16 || IrIs SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: May 7, 2021 18 Lox fe Sica 19 NANCY. i PPE 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28