Harper v. Nevada Property 1, LLC

1 JENNY L. FOLEY, Ph.D., ESQ.

Nevada Bar No. 9017 E-mail: [email protected] DANA SNIEGOCKI, ESQ.

3 Nevada Bar No. 11715 E-mail: [email protected] HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 1785 East Sahara, Suite 300 Las Vegas, Nevada 89104 Tel: (702) 805-8340 Fax: (702) 920-8112 Attorneys for Plaintiff DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA MITCHELL E. HARPER, CASE NO.: 2:19-cv-02069-GMN-VCF 10 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO vs. STAY DISCOVERY PENDING THE COURT’S RULING ON NEVADA PROPERTY 1, LLC dba DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COSMOPOLITAN OF LAS VEGAS, DISMISS (ECF NO. 9) Defendants. (FIRST REQUEST) Plaintiff MITHCELL E. HARPER and Defendant NEVADA PROPERTY 1, LLC, by and through their counsel of record, stipulate to stay discovery pending the Court’s ruling on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9), which seeks dismissal of all claims in Plaintiff’s Complaint.

20 In assessing a request to stay discovery, the Court decides whether it is necessary to speed the parties along in discovery or whether it is appropriate to delay discovery and spare the parties the associated expense. Tradebay, LLC v. Ebay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 603 (D. Nev. 2011). To make this assessment, the Court takes a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the purportedly dispositive motion, though, importantly, this “preliminary peek” does not prejudge the outcome of the motion, it merely evaluates whether an order staying discovery is warranted.

2 Id. The Motion to Dismiss in this instant action is the type warranting a stay of discovery as Defendant has sought to dismiss five out of the six causes of action asserted by Plaintiff.

4 Moreover, no discovery is required to make a determination on the Motion to Dismiss and the Motion to Dismiss raises threshold legal issues (e.g., statute of limitations, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and preemption). Accordingly, requiring the parties to conduct discovery on claims that may be dismissed and may not be curable by amendment would cause an unnecessary expense on the parties and potentially log the Court’s docket with unnecessary discovery disputes on these claims. Additionally, because Defendant moved to dismiss the claims, Plaintiff has not been apprised of which factual allegations Defendant intends to admit, and which Defendant intends to deny. Nor has Plaintiff been apprised of the defenses Defendant intends to assert. Plaintiff believes this would limit his ability to conduct full discovery while the Motion to Dismiss is pending. Plaintiff disputes the arguments made in Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss but agrees that the motion is of the type warranting a stay of discovery. /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// ] In light of the foregoing, the parties request a stay of discovery until a decision 2 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is issued. The parties further stipulate and agree to || submit their Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order within ten (10) calendar || days of a decision on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

6 || Dated this 12 day of August, 2020.

8 || HKM EMPLOYMENT JACKSON LEWIS P.C.

9 ATTORNEYS LLP /s/ Jenny L. Foley By: /s/ Lisa A. McClane || Jenny L. Foley, Ph.D., Esq. Lisa A. McClane NV Bar No. 10139 Nevada Bar No. 9017 Daniel I. Aquino NV Bar No. 12682 IT || 1785 East Sahara, Suite 300 JACKSON LEWIS P.C.

Las Vegas, Nevada 89104 300 S. Fourth Street, Suite 900 ll Tel: (702) 805-8340 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 E-mail: [email protected] Tel: (702) 921-2460 13 Attorneys for Plaintiff Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] 14 Attorneys for Defendant ORDER IT IS SO ORDERED:

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DATED: 8-12-2020 Pace 3 of 3