Phillips v. Ochoa

Attorney General Sabrena K. Clinton (Bar No. 6499) Deputy Attorney General Office of the Attorney General E. Washington Ave., Ste. 3900 Las Vegas, NV 89101 (702) 486-3420 (phone) (702) 486-3768 (fax) Attorneys for State Defendants 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 LAS VEGAS, NEVADA T. MATTHEW PHILLIPS, Next Friend of Case No. 2:22-cv-02086-RFB-BNW D.M.P., a Minor Plaintiff, 11 JOINT STIPULATION TO STAY v. DISCOVERY PENDING 12 RESOLUTION OF MOTIONS TO VINCENT OCHOA, STEVE WOLFSON, DISMISS JON NORHEIM, GERARD COSTANTIAN, AMBER KORPAK, CLARK COUNTY, EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT 15 Defendants.

16 Pursuant to Local Rules LR 7-1 and IA 6-2, Plaintiff T. Matthew Phillips and Defendants Vincent Ochoa, Jon Norheim, the Eighth Judicial District Court, Steve Wolfson, Gerard Costantian, Amber Korpak, and Clark County, hereby stipulate and agree to stay discovery, including initial disclosures, and a discovery plan and scheduling order, in this case pending resolution of Defendants’ motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 7, 8, and 12).

21 The parties submit that good cause exists for this stipulation to be granted under applicable law. Courts in the District of Nevada apply a two-part test when evaluating whether a discovery stay should be imposed. TradeBay, LLC v. Ebay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 600 (D. Nev. 2011) (citations omitted). First, the pending motion must be potentially dispositive of the entire case or at least the issue on which discovery is sought. Id. Second, the court must determine whether the pending motion to dismiss can be decided without additional discovery. Id. When applying this test, the court must take a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the pending dispositive motion to assess whether a stay is warranted. Id. 1 purpose of the “preliminary peek” is not to prejudge the outcome of the motion to dismiss. Rather, the court's role is to evaluate the propriety of an order staying or limiting || discovery with the goal of accomplishing the objectives of Rule 1.

4 Defendants filed motions to dismiss premised on immunity (absolute judicial, quasi- ||judicial, Eleventh Amendment), subject-matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman!

6 || doctrine, claim preclusion, and failure to state claims upon which relief could be granted.

7 || While Plaintiff disagrees on the merits of Defendants’ motions (see ECF Nos. 9, 14, 19), the || parties agree that the motions may be potentially dispositive of this case and can be decided || without discovery.

10 Counsel for the parties conferred on discovery obligations on April 3"4 and 5th, 2023 || before submitting this stipulation.

13 || DATED this day of April, 2023. DATED this day of April, 2023.

14 || STEVEN B. WOLFSON HUTCHINSON & STEFFEN /s/ Scott R. Davis /s/Shannon R. Wilson || Scott R. Davis (10019) Shannon R. Wilson (9933) Stephanie A. Mazzei (11648) Todd W. Prall (9154) 17 S. Grand Central Pkwy., Suite 5075 10080 West Alta Drive, Suite 200 Las Vegas, NV 89155-2215 Las Vegas, NV 89145 || Attorneys for Steve Wolfson, Gerard Attorneys for Amber Korpak Costantian, and Clark County 20 ORDER 21 IT IS ORDERED that ECF No. 23 is GRANTED.

22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if necessary, the parties are to file a 23 proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order 14 days after the motions to dismiss are decided.

24 /// IT ISSO ORDERED 25 Beau tawebin, 296 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 ——— SSS Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, || 460 U.S. 462 (1983).