Wahlberg v. NV Energy, a public utility ( 2019 )

1 || ROGER L. GRANDGENETT I, ESQ., Bar # 6323 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2 || 3960 Howard Hughes Parkway Suite 300 3 || Las Vegas, NV 89169-5937 Telephone: 702.862.8800 4 || Fax No.: 702.862.8811 Email: rgrandgenett @litler.com 5 6 || KARYN M. TAYLOR, ESQ., Bar # 6142 NV ENERGY 7 || 6100 Neil Road Reno, NV 89511 8 || Telephone: 775-834-5781 Fax: 775-834-3357 9 || Email: ktaylor@nvenergy.com 10 Attorneys for Defendant 11 || NV ENERGY 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 14 15 LETITIA WAHLBERG, an Individual, 16 Case No. 2:19-cv-01494-GMN-BNW Plaintiff, 17 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER VS. TO STAY DISCOVERY 18 NV ENERGY, a public utility, 19 Defendant. 20 21 Defendant NV Energy, Inc. (“Defendant”) and Plaintiff Letitia Wahlberg (“Plaintiff”), by and 22 through their respective counsel, do hereby stipulate to and request that the Court grant a stay in 23 discovery until the Court has ruled on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 7]. 24 The parties request a temporary stay with any duplicative and/or over-expansive discovery that 25 06 may result if discovery is to continue at this point prior to clarification on the pleadings. Specifically, 97 || the parties require a ruling on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 7] to know what claims may 28 || exist at this stage of the litigation and in order to evaluate what additional discovery, if any, is P.C 1 || necessary. For example, the parties cannot meaningful depose any witnesses without knowing what 2 || claims are and/or are not part of this lawsuit. 3 Courts have broad discretionary power to control discovery including the decision to allow or deny discovery. See e.g., Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9" Cir. 1988). In evaluating the 6 propriety of an order staying or limiting discovery while a dispositive motion is pending, the court 7 || considers the goal of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1, which provides that the Rules should “be 8 || construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy and 9 || inexpensive determination of every action.” With Rule 1 as its prime directive, the court must decide 10 whether it is more just to speed the parties along in discovery while a dispositive motion is pending or to delay discovery to accomplish the inexpensive determination of the case. See Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997); see also Twin City Fire Ins. v. 14 Employers Insurance of Wausau, 124 F.R.D. 652, 653 (D. Nev. 1989). 15 Further, in assessing a request to stay discovery, the court takes a “preliminary peek” at the 16 || merits of the dispositive motion. Tradebay, LLC v. Ebay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 603 (D. Nev. 2011). 17 || This “preliminary peek” does not prejudge the outcome of the motion; it merely evaluates whether an 18 order staying discovery is warranted. Jd. Common examples of situations in which good cause has been found to stay discovery are when jurisdiction, venue or immunity are preliminary issues. Id. Ultimately, the party seeking the stay “carries the heavy burden of making a strong showing why 0 discovery should be denied.” (citing Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9% Cir. 93 || 1975)). 24 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss warrants a stay in discovery. First, the Motion is potentially 25 dispositive of the entire case as it requests dismissal with prejudice of all of Plaintiff's claims. 26 Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s sex and age discrimination claims, and her constructive discharge and retaliation claims are not plausibly alleged and should be dismissed. Defendant also argues that 1 || Plaintiff should not be allowed to amend her Complaint or claims. Except for her national origin 2 | discrimination claim, which she agrees should be dismissed with prejudice, Plaintiff disputes the legal 3 arguments made in Defendant’s Motion and has filed an Opposition. However, the parties agree that Defendant’s Motion is the type warranting a stay of discovery. 6 Second, neither party will suffer hardship or inequity as a result of stay because further 7 || discovery is unjustified at this point. Since Defendant has moved to dismiss the entire case, Plaintiff 8 || has not been apprised of which factual allegations Defendant intends to admit and which factual 9 || allegations Defendant intends to deny. Nor has Plaintiff been apprised of the defenses that Defendant 10 intends to assert. Plaintiff believes this would severely limit her opportunity to conduct full discovery while the motion is pending. The parties agree that discovery is not necessary prior to the Court’s resolution of the legal issues raised by the Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, requiring the parties to 14 conduct discovery on claims that may not be properly before the Court would result in an unnecessary 15 || expenditure of resources and is particularly prejudicial to Defendant. 16 Third, similar to the situation in Little, this is a case where a temporary stay of discovery will 17 || further the goals of judicial economy, control of the Court’s docket, and an inexpensive determination 18 of the case. 863 F.2d 681. Ordering the parties to proceed with discovery could potentially clog the Court’s docket with discovery disputes on claims that may be dismissed. The requested stay is only to extend the discovery and remaining case deadlines and not to any 0 briefing or hearings currently on file or scheduled with the Court, including, but not limited to, 93 || Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 7] and the Early Neutral Evaluation session scheduled for 24 || December 16, 2019 [ECF No. 11]. The parties maintain their arguments with respect to the motion to 25 || dismiss. Accordingly, the parties have made the strong showing necessary to support their joint 26 request to stay discovery. For the reasons articulated above, the Court should stay discovery until an Order has been issued on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. If Plaintiffs claims survive, then the parties 1 || will submit its Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order at such future date to be ordered by the Court. 2 DATED: November 19, 2019 /s/ Roger L. Grandgenett, Esq. 3 KARYN N. TAYLOR, ESQ. ROGER L. GRANDGENETT, II, ESQ. 4 Attorneys for Defendant, NV ENERGY 5 DATED: November 19, 2019 /s/ Jenny L. Foley, Esq. 6 JENNY L. FOLEY, ESQ. MARTA D. KURSHUMOVA, ESQ. 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff, LETITIA WAHLBERG 8 ORDER 9 2nd December 10 IT IS SO ORDERED this day of , 2019. 11 3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28