Ondey v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc.

1 MONTGOMERY Y. PAEK, ESQ., Bar No. 10176 AMY L. THOMPSON, ESQ. Bar No. 11907 EMIL S. KIM, ESQ., Bar No. 14894 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.

3 3960 Howard Hughes Parkway Suite 300 Las Vegas, Nevada 89169.5937 Telephone: 702.862.8800 Fax No.: 702.862.8811 Email: [email protected] 6 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA MICHELE ONDEY, on behalf of herself and all Case No. 3:22-cv-00096-RCJ-CLB others similarly situated, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 14 Plaintiff, STAY DISCOVERY PENDING THE COURT’S RULING ON 15 v. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT, INC. formerly (ECF NO. 4) known as ELDERADO RESORTS INC.; CIRCUS AND EL DORADO JOINT VENTURE, LLC d/b/a SILVER LEGACY RESORT CASINO; DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant.

22 Plaintiff MICHELE ONDEY (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT, INC., formerly known as El Dorado Resorts Inc., and Circus and El Dorado Joint Venture, LLC d/b/a Silver Legacy Resort Casino (“Defendants”), by and through their counsel of record, stipulate to stay discovery pending the Court’s ruling on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 4), which seeks dismissal of all claims in Plaintiff’s Complaint.

27 / / / / / / 1 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. Id. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is the type warranting a stay of discovery as Defendants have sought to dismiss all of Plaintiff’s claims.

8 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., plausibility of unlawful tip pooling and overtime claims, whether overtime claims are exempted by Section 207(i) of the FLSA, whether NRS 608.0197 confers a private right of action, and standing to assert waiting time penalty claim). Accordingly, requiring the parties to conduct discovery on claims that may be dismissed would cause an unnecessary expense on the parties and potentially log the Court’s docket with unnecessary discovery disputes on these claims.

15 Furthermore, this Court has also found that “good cause . . . may also be established by other factors, not related to the merits of the dispositive motion” including when “the movant seeks a stay of discovery to prevent ‘undue burden or expense’” Schrader v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, No. 2:19-CV- 02159-JCM-BNW, 2021 WL 4810324, at *4 (D. Nev. Oct. 14, 2021) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)).

19 Here, a stay is also warranted because the lawsuit is a putative collective and class action, Plaintiff’s Complaint sets forth several subclasses, discovery will involve the exchange and review of several thousand pages of documents, and discovery will implicate several witnesses (including expert witnesses). See id. at *5.

24 / / / / / / / / / ] Additionally, because Defendants moved to fully dismiss the case, Plaintiff has not been || apprised of which factual allegations Defendants intend to admit, and which Defendants intend to | deny. Nor has Plaintiff been apprised of the defenses Defendants intend to assert. Plaintiff believes || this would limit her ability to conduct full discovery while the Motion to Dismiss is pending. Plaintiff || disputes the arguments made in Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss but agrees that the motion is of the || type warranting a stay of discovery. g Dated: July 18, 2022 9 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. THIERMAN BUCK, LLP 11 /s/ Emil S. Kim /s/ Joshua R. Hendrickson MONTGOMERY Y. PAEK, ESQ. MARK R. THIERMAN, ESQ.

12 AMY L. THOMPSON, ESQ. JOSHUA D. BUCK, ESQ.

EMIL S. KIM, ESQ. LEAH L. JONES, ESQ.

13 JOSHUA R. HENDRICKSON, ESQ.

Attorneys for Defendants 14 Attorneys for Plaintiff 16 IT IS SO ORDERED.

17 Dated: July 19, 2022.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 4874-965 1-4601.4 / 083558-1255 PC]