Taylor v. Clark County School District ( 2019 )

CRYSTAL J. HERRERA, ESQ. 1 Nevada Bar No. 12396 CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 2 OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL 3 5100 West Sahara Avenue Las Vegas, Nevada 89146 4 P: (702) 799-5373 F: (702) 799-5505 5 Email: herrec4@nv.ccsd.net 6 Attorneys for Defendants 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 10 SHAUN TAYLOR, CASE NO.: 2:18-cv-01264-KJD-VCF 11 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY 12 vs. 13 (FIRST REQUEST) CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT; 14 KEITH FRANCE, an individual; DOES 1-10; ROE CORPORATIONS 1-10, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Shaun Taylor and Defendants Clark County School District and Keith France 19 (collectively, “Defendants”), by and through their attorneys of record, hereby stipulate and agree 20 pursuant to Local Rule 7-1 as follows: 21 1. The parties stipulate that discovery in this matter be stayed until a ruling on 22 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 40) has been obtained. 23 2. On November 19, 2018, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 15) seeking 24 dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims for Title VII race discrimination (first cause of action); Title VII 25 retaliation (second cause of action); abuse of process (fourth cause of action); defamation (fifth 26 cause of action); and intentional infliction of emotional distress (sixth cause of action). Plaintiff 27 opposed to the Motion (ECF No. 20) and Defendants filed a Reply (ECF No. 21) 1 3. On June 11, 2019, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion, in its entirety, and only 2 granted Plaintiff leave to amend two claims— the defamation (fifth cause of action) and intentional 3 infliction of emotional distress (sixth cause of action) claims. (ECF No. 36). 4 4. On July 2, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint asserting a claim for 5 defamation (first cause of action) and for intentional infliction of emotional distress (second cause 6 of action). ECF No. 39. 7 5. Defendants renewed the request for dismissal, on July 16, 2019, on the basis that the 8 Amended Complaint added no factual allegations to support the two claims. ECF No. 40. Plaintiff 9 opposed Defendants’ Motion (ECF No. 41), and Defendants filed a Reply (ECF No. 43). 10 6. As identified in the filings, Plaintiff’s claims may now be barred under the 11 applicable statute of limitations. Accordingly, if Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted, it can 12 be entirely dispositive of the case and render the entirety of the litigation moot. 13 7. The parties agree it is in the best interest of all parties to await the Court’s ruling on 14 the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 40) prior to incurring the additional time and expense of 15 depositions and the filing of dispositive motions, in the event the Court dismisses the action in 16 whole or in part. 17 8. Federal district courts have “wide discretion in controlling discovery.” Little v. City 18 of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). In exercising this discretion, a district court may stay 19 discovery based on the filing of a motion that is “potential dispositive of the entire case.” Tradebay, 20 LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (courts are to 21 balance the expense of discovery against its likely benefit); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (the Federal Rules of 22 Civil Procedure “should be construed, administered, and employed … to secure the just, speedy, 23 and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding”). As such, it is within the Court’s 24 power to grant a stay of discovery at this time. 25 9. The pending Motion to Dismiss, if granted, may dispose of the entirety of the 26 litigation. Accordingly, the parties, after consultation with one another, have determined it would 27 1 || be in the best interest of each respective side to ask this Court to grant a stay until the Court renders 2 || a decision on the pending Motion to Dismiss. 3 10. —‘-It is respectfully submitted neither side believes this minor delay will cause harm to 4 || their ability to do discovery in the matter nor will it cause either side to be in a worse position. The 5 || parties believe that, by not expending more funds or time until this matter is resolved, the parties 6 || have set themselves in the best position possible to preserve resources and protect their respective 7 || funds. The interests of litigation efficiency and judicial economy are also promoted. 8 9 Dated this 21* day of August, 2019. Dated this 21“ day of August, 2019. 19 || LIZADA LAW FIRM, LTD. CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL 1] 12 || By: /s/Angela L. Lizada By: /4s/ Crystal J. Herrera ANGELA L. LIZADA, ESQ. CRYSTAL J. HERRERA, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 11637 Nevada Bar No. 12396 14 501 S. 7th St. 5100 W Sahara Ave Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Las Vegas, NV 89146 15 Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney for Defendants 16 17 ORDER 18 IT ISSO ORDERED. 1 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8-22-2019 DATED: eee 23 24 25 26 27 28