Case Information
*1 Case 2:22-cv-02086-RFB-BNW Document 24 Filed 04/10/23 Page 1 of 2 Case 2:22-cv-02086-RFB-BNW Document 23 Filed 04/06/23 Page 1 of 3 AARON D. FORD
Attorney General
Sabrena K. Clinton (Bar No. 6499)
Deputy Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
555 E. Washington Ave., Ste. 3900
Las Vegas, NV 89101
(702) 486-3420 (phone)
(702) 486-3768 (fax)
Attorneys for State Defendants
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
T. MATTHEW PHILLIPS, Next Friend of Case No. 2:22-cv-02086-RFB-BNW D.M.P., a Minor
Plaintiff,
JOINT STIPULATION TO STAY v. DISCOVERY PENDING
RESOLUTION OF MOTIONS TO VINCENT OCHOA, STEVE WOLFSON, DISMISS
JON NORHEIM, GERARD COSTANTIAN,
AMBER KORPAK, CLARK COUNTY,
EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
Defendants.
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).
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.
Page 1 of 3 *2 Case 2:22-cv-02086-RFB-BNW Document 24 Filed 04/10/23 Page 2 of 2 Case 2:22-cv-02086-RFB-BNW Document 23 Filed 04/06/23 Page 2 of 3 The 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.
Defendants filed motions to dismiss premised on immunity (absolute judicial, quasi- judicial, Eleventh Amendment), subject-matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman [1] doctrine, claim preclusion, and failure to state claims upon which relief could be granted.
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.
Counsel for the parties conferred on discovery obligations on April 3 rd and 5 th , 2023 before submitting this stipulation.
DATED this day of April, 2023. DATED this day of April, 2023. IT IS SO ORDERED DATED: BRENDA WEKSLER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE IT IS ORDERED that ECF No. 23 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if necessary, the parties are to file a proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order 14 days after the motions to dismiss are decided.
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)
500 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
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
1:55 pm, April 10, 2023
/ / /
/ / /
[1] Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. , 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman , 28 460 U.S. 462 (1983). Page 2 of 3