1 ROGER L. GRANDGENETT II, Bar No. 6323 AMY L. THOMPSON, Bar No. 11907 2 LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 3960 Howard Hughes Parkway 3 Suite 300 Las Vegas, Nevada, 89169 4 Telephone: 702.862.8800 Fax No.: 702.862.8811 5 Email: [email protected] [email protected] 6 Attorneys for Defendants 7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10 LEIDA PANGINDIAN, an individual, Case No. 2:21-cv-00687-GMN-EJY 11 Plaintiff, 12 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] v. ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY FOR 60 13 HONEYBEE FOODS CORPORATION a DAYS 14 foreign corporation; ROBERT DENOLO, an individual; and DOES and ROE entities I-X, (FIRST REQUEST) 15 inclusive, 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff LEIDA PANGINDIAN and Defendants HONEYBEE FOODS CORPORATION 19 and ROBERT DENOLO. by and through their counsel of record, stipulate to stay discovery for a 20 period of sixty (60) days. 21 Counsel held a Rule 26(f) conference on June 10, 2021 wherein it was discussed and 22 ultimately agreed that a stay of discovery was warranted in this matter in light of Defendants’ 23 pending motion to dismiss which could result in complete dismissal of Plaintiff’s IIED and FMLA 24 claims. Further, the parties discussed commencing settlement discussions which could result in 25 early resolution. The parties agree that staying discovery for a limited period will enable the parties 26 to divert resources to exploring a potential early resolution.1

27 1 While the parties agree to stay formal discovery, the parties agree to exchange initial disclosures by July 9, 2021 to help foster a candid discussion of the claims but beyond initial 28 1 In assessing a request to stay discovery, the Court decides whether it is necessary to speed 2 the parties along in discovery or whether it is appropriate to delay discovery and spare the parties 3 the associated expense. Tradebay, LLC v. Ebay, Inc.,

(D. Nev. 2011). To 4 make this assessment, the Court takes a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the purportedly 5 dispositive motion, though, importantly, this “preliminary peek” does not prejudge the outcome of 6 the motion, it merely evaluates whether an order staying discovery is warranted.

Defendants’ 7 Motion to Dismiss is the type warranting a stay of discovery as Defendants have sought to dismiss 8 two of Plaintiff’s three claims with prejudice. The remaining claim is a quasi-contract claim with 9 an amount in controversy of only $2,498.42 based on allegations that Defendants did not reimburse 10 Plaintiff for business expenses. Moreover, no discovery is required to make a determination on the 11 Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, requiring the parties to conduct discovery on claims that may be 12 dismissed and may not be curable by further amendment would cause an unnecessary expense on 13 the parties and potentially log the Court’s docket with unnecessary discovery disputes on these 14 claims. Additionally, because of the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff has not been apprised of which 15 factual allegations Defendants intend to admit, and which Defendants intend to deny. Nor has 16 Plaintiff been apprised of the defenses Defendants intend to assert. Plaintiff believes this would 17 limit her ability to conduct full discovery while the Motion to Dismiss is pending. Plaintiff disputes 18 the arguments made in Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss but agrees that the motion is of the type 19 warranting a stay of discovery. Moreover, the parties have discussed exploring an early resolution 20 and wish to divert efforts to those discussions before engaging in extensive discovery. Thus, it 21 would be appropriate to spare the parties the burden and expense of discovery in light of these 22 reasons. 23 The parties will re-visit this issue after sixty days to determine whether circumstances have 24 changed that might warrant commencing discovery or continuing the stay. Accordingly, the parties 25 request that discovery be stayed sixty days or until September 1, 2021 unless the Court rules on 26 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss prior to that date. If the Court rules on Defendants’ Motion to 27 Dismiss prior to September 1, 2021, the parties will submit a stipulated discovery plan and 28 scheduling order within 14 days of the Court’s ruling on Defendants’ Motion. If the Court does 1 |} not rule on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss prior to September 1, 2021, the parties will conduct 2 || another discovery conference and either submit a stipulated discovery plan and scheduling order, 3 || or a proposed stipulation for an additional stay of discovery. 4 Dated: July 1, 2021 Dated: July 1, 2021 5 Respectfully submitted, Respectfully submitted, 6 7 || 4s/ Trevor J. Hatfield /s/ Amy L. Thompson TREVOR J. HATFIELD, ESQ. ROGER L. GRANDGENETT, II, ESQ. 8 || HATFIELD & ASSOCIATES, LTD AMY L. THOMPSON, ESQ. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 9 || Attorney for Plaintiff Attorneys for Defendants 10 1] IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 . Dated: July 2, 2021. 13 14 15 UNITED STAT AG] TRATE JUDGE 16 17 4841-9515-6208.1 / 111725-1001 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MENDELSON ess