Garren v. Dzurenda ( 2024 )

Attorney General 2 NATHAN M. CLAUS (Bar No. 15889) 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) 486-7629 (phone) (702) 486-3773 (fax) 6 Email: nclaus@ag.nv.gov Attorneys for Defendants 7 Scott Davis, James Dzurenda, Mario Castro, Timothy Garrett, Brian Williams, 8 Kara LeGrand, and Harold Wickham 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 11 RONALD GARREN, Case No. 3:23-cv-00141-MMD-CSD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 13 v. UNOPPOSED MOTION TO STAY THE CASE ANOTHER 90 DAYS 14 JAMES DZURENDA, et al., [Second Request] 15 Defendants. 16 Defendants, Scott Davis, James Dzurenda, Mario Castro, Timothy Garrett, Brian 17 Williams, Kara LeGrand, and Harold Wickham, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, 18 Nevada Attorney General, and Nathan M. Claus, Deputy Attorney General, of the State of 19 Nevada, Office of the Attorney General, hereby Unopposed Motion to Stay the Case Another 20 90 Days. This Motion is based upon the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities 21 and all other pleadings and files contained herein. 22 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 23 I. BACKGROUND AND RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY 24 Plaintiff filed this case alleging violations of his constitutional rights.1 Defendants 25 have accepted service.2 On or around March 16, 2024, Mr. Garren was released from 26 Lovelock Correctional Center (LCC). 27 1 ECF No. 11. 28 2 ECF No. 29. 2 case for 90 days.3 The Court granted this request for a stay on April 26, 2024, and stayed 3 the case.4 The Court has currently set this matter for a Mandatory Telephonic Case 4 Management Conference on August 7, 2024.5 5 II. APPLICABLE LAW FOR MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY 6 Courts have broad discretionary power to control discovery.6 “The Federal Rules of 7 Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a 8 potentially dispositive motion is pending.”7 Instead, a party seeking to stay discovery 9 carries the burden of making a strong showing why discovery should be denied.8 10 In deciding whether to grant a stay of discovery, the court is guided by the objectives 11 of Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 to ensure a “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every 12 action.”9 Staying discovery when a court is convinced that the plaintiff will be unable to 13 state a claim for relief furthers the goal of efficiency for the court and the litigants.10 14 III. ARGUMENT TO STAY DISCOVERY 15 On July 16, 2024, Plaintiff called counsel for Defendants seeking a 90-day extension 16 of the stay.11 Plaintiff is working on getting counsel for this case and needs more time to 17 complete this process. In addition, Plaintiff will complete certification required for a new 18 job within the next 30 days. Counsel for Defendants informed Plaintiff that the Office of 19 the Attorney General will be moving their office location in the next 30 days and will likely 20 have delays with any discovery requests should the case proceed forward. Plaintiff does not 21 have an email address and communicate with each other via phone calls and through the 22 mail, so the only way for the parties to share documents is through the mail. Based on the 23 3 ECF No. 34. 4 ECF No. 35. 24 5 ECF No. 36. 6 See, e.g., Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir.1988). 25 7 Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). 8 See, e.g., Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F. R. D. 554, 556 26 (D. Nev. 1997). 9 Tradebay, 278 F. R.D. at 602–03. 27 10 Little, 863 F.2d at 685 (noting a stay of discovery furthered the goal of efficiency where a party had moved for judgment on the ground of qualified immunity). 28 11 If the Court requires a declaration in support of these, one can be provided. 1 || above conditions, the parties agreed the most effective way for them to make their request 2 || for this stay was for defendants to file the initial request. Plaintiff indicated that he did not 3 || oppose this request and gave permission to state so in this motion. 4 The parties agreed that a 90-day stay would be beneficial for this case and will 5 further the goal of efficiency for this Court and the parties. Further, there is no discovery 6 order from the Court yet, so there are no deadlines that will need to be moved. Thus, this 7 || Court should stay the case for 90 days. 8 ||IV. CONCLUSION 9 Defendants respectfully request this Court grant their motion to stay the case for 10 || another 90 days. 11 12 DATED this 16th day of July, 2024. 13 AARON D. FORD Attorney General 14 By: /s/ Nathan M. Claus 15 NATHAN M. CLAUS (Bar No. 15889) 16 Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants 18 IT |S SO ORDERED. 19 DATED: July 18, 2024. 20 CS 22 Craig S. Denney 93 United States Magistrate Judge 24 25 26 27 28