1 JENNY L. FOLEY, Ph.D., ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 9017 2 E-mail: [email protected] HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 3 1785 East Sahara, Suite 300 4 Las Vegas, Nevada 89104 Tel: (702) 805-8340 5 Fax: (702) 805-8340 Attorneys for Plaintiff 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 SALVADOR LIBUTAN, an Individual, 9 CASE NO.: 2:20-cv-00304-RFB-NJK Plaintiff, 10

11 vs. STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY 12 MGM GRAND, A CORPORATION, DOES 1-50, inclusive and ROE (FIRST REQUEST) 13 CORPORATIONS 1-50, inclusive, 14 Defendant. 15

16 17 Plaintiff SALVADOR LIBUTAN and Defendant MGM GRAND, A CORPORATION, 18 by and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate and agree to stay discovery pending the 19 outcome of the Early Neutral Evaluation scheduled for October 28, 2020 or pending the Court’s 20 ruling on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 8), which seeks full and/or partial dismissal 21 of each of the causes of action asserted in Plaintiff’s Complaint, which ever occurs first. 22 In assessing a request to stay discovery, the Court decides whether it is necessary to 23 speed the parties along in discovery or whether it is appropriate to delay discovery and spare 24 the parties the associated expense. Tradebay, LLC v. Ebay, Inc.,

(D. Nev. 25 2011). To make this assessment, the Court takes a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the 26 purportedly dispositive motion, though, importantly, this “preliminary peek” does not prejudge 27 the outcome of the motion, it merely evaluates whether an order staying discovery is warranted. 28 1

The Motion to Dismiss in this instant action is the type warranting a stay of discovery as 2 Defendant has sought full dismissal and/or partial dismissal on all five causes of action asserted 3 by Plaintiff. Moreover, no discovery is required to make a determination on the Motion to 4 Dismiss and the Motion to Dismiss raises threshold legal issues (e.g., statute of limitations and 5 failure to exhaust administrative remedies). Accordingly, requiring the parties to conduct 6 discovery on claims that may be dismissed and may not be curable by amendment would cause 7 an unnecessary expense on the parties and potentially log the Court’s docket with unnecessary 8 discovery disputes on these claims. Additionally, because Defendant moved to dismiss the 9 claims, Plaintiff has not been apprised of which factual allegations Defendant intends to admit, 10 and which Defendant intends to deny. Nor has Plaintiff been apprised of the defenses 11 Defendant intends to assert. Plaintiff believes this would limit his ability to conduct full 12 discovery while the Motion to Dismiss is pending. Plaintiff disputes the arguments made in 13 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss but agrees that the motion is of the type warranting a stay of 14 discovery. 15 /// 16

17 /// 18

19 /// 20

21 22 /// 23 24 /// 25 26 /// 27 28 /// ] In light of the foregoing, the parties request a stay of discovery until a decision on 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 the conclusion of the Early Neutral Evaluation or a decision on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, whichever 6 || comes first. DATED this 23" day of September, 2020. DATED this 23"¢ day of September, 2020. 9 HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS MGM GRAND HOTEL, LLC 10 /s/ Jenny L. Foley /s/_Kelly R. Kichline 11 Jenny L. Foley, Bar #9017 Kelly R. Kichline, Esq. 1785 East Sahara, Suite 300 Nevada Bar No.: 10642 12 Las Vegas, Nevada 89104 6385 S. Rainbow Boulevard, Suite 500 Telephone: (702) 805-8340 Las Vegas, NV 89119 13 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] 14 Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney for Defendant 15 Salvador Libutan MGM Grand Hotel, LLC 16 17 18 ORDER 19 IT IS SO ORDERED: 20

RICHARD F. WARE, II 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 DATED this 24th day of September, 2020. 24 25 26 27 28 Page 3 of 3