1 WENDY M. KRINCEK, ESQ., Bar # 6417 AMY THOMPSON, ESQ., Bar # 11907 2 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 3960 Howard Hughes Parkway 3 Suite 300 Las Vegas, NV 89169-5937 4 Telephone: 702.862.8800 Fax No.: 702.862.8811 5 Email: [email protected] [email protected] 6 Attorneys for Defendant 7 ABSOLUTE DENTAL & ORTHODONTICS PRADA, PLLC 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 11 PAULINA KLEIP-SOTELO, an Individual, Case No. 2:20-cv-00021-KJD-DJA

12 Plaintiff, vs. 13 ABSOLUTE DENTAL & ORTHODONTICS STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 14 PRADA, PLLC., a Domestic Professional TO STAY DISCOVERY PENDING THE Limited Liability Company, DOES I -X; ROE COURT’S RULING ON DEFENDANT’S 15 CORPORATIONS I -X., MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF NO. 8)

16 Defendant. (FIRST REQUEST)

17 18 Plaintiff PAULINA KLEIP-SOTELO and Defendant ABSOLUTE DENTAL & 19 ORTHODONTICS PRADA, PLLC., by and through their counsel of record, stipulate to stay 20 discovery pending the Court’s ruling on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 8), which seeks 21 dismissal of all claims in Plaintiff’s Complaint. 22 In assessing a request to stay discovery, the Court decides whether it is necessary to speed the 23 parties along in discovery or whether it is appropriate to delay discovery and spare the parties the 24 associated expense. Tradebay, LLC v. Ebay, Inc.,

(D. Nev. 2011). To make this 25 assessment, the Court takes a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the purportedly dispositive motion, 26 though, importantly, this “preliminary peek” does not prejudge the outcome of the motion, it merely 27 evaluates whether an order staying discovery is warranted.

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is the 28 1 type warranting a stay of discovery as Defendant has sought to dismiss all of Plaintiff’s claims. 2 Moreover, no discovery is required to make a determination on the Motion to Dismiss and the Motion 3 to Dismiss raises threshold legal issues (e.g., statute of limitations, failure to exhaust administrative 4 remedies, and preemption). Accordingly, requiring the parties to conduct discovery on claims that 5 may be dismissed and may not be curable by amendment would cause an unnecessary expense on the 6 parties and potentially log the Court’s docket with unnecessary discovery disputes on these claims. 7 Additionally, because Defendant moved to fully dismiss the case, Plaintiff has not been apprised of 8 which factual allegations Defendant intends to admit, and which Defendant intends to deny. Nor has 9 Plaintiff been apprised of the defenses Defendant intends to assert. Plaintiff believes this would limit 10 her ability to conduct full discovery while the Motion to Dismiss is pending. Plaintiff disputes the 11 arguments made in Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss but agrees that the motion is of the type warranting 12 a stay of discovery. 13 / / / 14 / / / 15 / / / 16 / / / 17 / / / 18 / / / 19 / / / 20 / / / 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 1 Moreover, the parties have discussed commencing informal settlement discussions, which may 2 result in an early resolution of this case. Thus, it would be appropriate to spare the parties the burden 3 and expense of discovery in light of these reasons. Therefore, the parties jointly request the Court stay 4 discovery until the Court rules on the Motion to Dismiss. If the Motion is not fully granted, the parties 5 will submit a stipulated discovery plan and scheduling order within 21 days of the Court’s ruling on 6 Defendant’s Motion. 7 8 Dated: May 15, 2020 9 Respectfully submitted, Respectfully submitted, 10 11 /s/ Amy Thompson /s/_ Marta D, Kurshumova WENDY M. KRINCEK, ESQ. JENNY L. FOLEY, Ph.D., ESQ. 12 AMY THOMPSON, ESQ. MARTA D. KURSHUMOVA, ESQ. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS

4 Attorneys for Defendant Attorneys for Plaintiff 15 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 18 Dated: May _ '© _, 2020. 19 OANA 21 >< ZY □□ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3.

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY