Alexander v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

D. Nevada

Alexander v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

DecidedJuly 27, 2023

Docket2:21-cv-00509

StatusUnknown

This text of Alexander v. Costco Wholesale Corporation (Alexander v. Costco Wholesale Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alexander v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, (D. Nev. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 SAO BRADLEY S. MAINOR, ESQ. 2 Nevada Bar No. 7434 3 JOSEPH J. WIRTH, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 10280 4 ASH MARIE BLACKBURN, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 14712 5 MAINOR WIRTH, LLP 6 6018 S. Ft. Apache Rd., Ste. 150 Las Vegas, Nevada 89148 7 Phone: (702) 464-5000 Fax: (702) 463-4440 8 ash@mwinjury.com 9 Counsel for Plaintiffs UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 11 12 SARAH ELIZABETH ALEXANDER, an Case No.: 2:21-cv-00509-APG-VCF individual; ROBERT ROY ALEXANDER, 13 an individual, STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR STAY 14 Plaintiffs, OF DISCOVERY PENDING RULING OF vs. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS FOR 15 SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE

16 COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION (FIRST REQUEST) dba Costco, a Foreign Corporation; VALLEY 17 CONTAX INC., DOES I-X; and ROE 18 BUSINESS ENTITIES XI-XX, inclusive,

19 Defendants. 20 21 It is hereby Stipulated between Plaintiffs Sarah Elizabeth Alexander and Robert Roy 22 Alexander, by and through counsel of record, Ash Marie Blackburn, Esq., of Mainor Wirth, LLP, 23 Defendant Valley Contax, Inc., by and through counsel of record, Alan W. Westbrook, Esq. of 24 Perry & Westbrook, P.C., and Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation, by through counsel of 25 record, Edgar Carranza, Esq., of Messner Reeves, LLP, that discovery in this action be stayed 26 pending resolution of Plaintiffs’ Motions for Spoliation of Evidence against each of the 27 Defendants (ECF Nos. 31 and 32). 28 PAGE 1 OF 4 1 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY. 2 On October 28, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial in the 3 Eighth Judicial District Court, District of Nevada. 4 On March 29, 2021,this matter was removed from the Eighth Judicial District Court to the 5 United States District Court, District of Nevada. See Notice of Removal and Errata to Notice of 6 Removal, (ECF No. 1 and ECF No.4). 7 On April 13, 2021, Defendant Costco filed its Statement of Removal, (ECF No. 7). 8 On April 28, 2021 the parties Joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order was granted 9 (ECF. No. 10). 10 On December 15, 2021 the Parties First Stipulation and Order to Extend Discovery Plan 11 12 and Scheduling Order was Granted (ECF No. 13). 13 On April 11, 2022 the Parties Second Stipulation and Order to Extend Discovery Plan and 14 Scheduling Order was Granted (ECF No. 15). 15 On September 19, 2022 the Parties Third Stipulation and Order to Extend Discovery Plan 16 and Scheduling Order was Granted (ECF No. 22). 17 On December 7, 2022 the Parties Fourth Stipulation and Order to Extend Discovery Plan 18 and Scheduling Order was Granted (ECF No. 28). 19 On April 4, 2023 the Parties Fifth Stipulation and Order to Extend Discovery Plan and 20 Scheduling Order was Granted (ECF No. 30). 21 On July 19, 2023 Plaintiffs filed their Motion For Spoliation of Evidence Against 22 Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation (ECF No. 31). 23 On July 19, 2023 Plaintiffs filed their Motion For Spoliation of Evidence Against 24 Defendant Valley Contax, Inc. (ECF No. 32). 25 Defendant Costo Wholesale Corporation’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Spoliation 26 of Evidence is currently due on August 2, 2023. 27 28 PAGE 2 OF 4 1 Defendant Valley Contax, Inc.’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Spoliation of 2 Evidence is currently due on August 2, 2023. 3 II. LEGAL ARGUMENT 4 The district court has “wide discretion in controlling discovery.” Little v. Seattle, 863 5 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1) (describing the court’s ability to 6 limit the scope of discovery). Ultimately, when deciding whether to grant a stay of discovery, a 7 court is guided by the objectives of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 that ensures a “just, speedy, 8 and inexpensive determination of every action.” Schrader v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, 2021 WL 9 4810324, *3 (D. Nev. Oct. 14, 2021) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 1); see also Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, 10 Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011) (explaining that courts evaluating the propriety of a stay 11 12 have cautioned against the use of resources that may be rendered unnecessary, noting the simple, 13 but accurate principle: “Discovery is expensive”). 14 Plaintiffs Motions for Spoliation of Evidence against each Defendant are pending before 15 the Court and are seeking the ultimate sanction of striking each Defendant’s answer. See ECF 16 Nos. 31 and 32. Additional lesser sanctions are also outlined and requested in the Motions if this 17 Court does not find grounds to strike. Id. Responsive pleadings from each Defendant are currently 18 due August 2, 2023. The Parties have agreed that discovery should be stayed until the Court has 19 decided the Motions for Spoliation of Evidence. Since the Court’s ruling(s) on the Motions for 20 Spoliation of Evidence could potentially result in dismissal of parts of Defendants’ case, it would 21 be an inefficient use of resources to engage in additional discovery prior to the Court’s ruling. 22 See Sibley v. U.S. Sup. Ct., 786 F. Supp. 2d 338, 346 (D.D.C. 2011) (“[I]t is well settled that 23 discovery is generally considered inappropriate while a motion that would be thoroughly 24 dispositive of the claims in the Complaint is pending.”). 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 PAGE 3 OF 4 1 III. CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Parties respectfully request the Court stay all discovery until a 3 decision is issued onPlaintiffs’ Motions for Spoliation of Evidence. 4 5 Dated this 25th day of July, 2023. Dated this 25th day of July, 2023. 6 PERRY & WESTBROOK MAINOR WIRTH, LLP 7 /s/ Alan Westbrook /s/ AshMarie Blackburn _________ ALAN W. WESTBROOK, ESQ. ASH MARIE BLACKBURN, ESQ. 8 Nevada Bar No. 6167 Nevada Bar No. 14712 9 11500 S. Eastern Avenue, Ste. 140 6018 S. Fort Apache Road, Ste. 150 Henderson, NV 89052 Las Vegas, NV 89148 10 Attorney for Defendant Valley Contax Inc. Attorney for Plaintiffs, Sarah Elizabeth Alexander and Robert Roy Alexander 11 12 Dated this 25th day of July, 2023. 13 MESSNER REEVES, LLP 14 /s/ Edgar Carranza . 15 EDGAR CARRANZA, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 5902 16 8945 W. Russell Road, Suite 300 Las Vegas, NV89148 17 Attorney for Defendants, Costco Wholesale 18 19 IT IS SOORDERED. 20 DATEDthis 27thday of July, 2023. 21 ____________________________________ 22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 PAGE 4OF4

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 SAO BRADLEY S. MAINOR, ESQ. 2 Nevada Bar No. 7434 3 JOSEPH J. WIRTH, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 10280 4 ASH MARIE BLACKBURN, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 14712 5 MAINOR WIRTH, LLP 6 6018 S. Ft. Apache Rd., Ste. 150 Las Vegas, Nevada 89148 7 Phone: (702) 464-5000 Fax: (702) 463-4440 8 ash@mwinjury.com 9 Counsel for Plaintiffs UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 11 12 SARAH ELIZABETH ALEXANDER, an Case No.: 2:21-cv-00509-APG-VCF individual; ROBERT ROY ALEXANDER, 13 an individual, STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR STAY 14 Plaintiffs, OF DISCOVERY PENDING RULING OF vs. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS FOR 15 SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE

16 COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION (FIRST REQUEST) dba Costco, a Foreign Corporation; VALLEY 17 CONTAX INC., DOES I-X; and ROE 18 BUSINESS ENTITIES XI-XX, inclusive,

19 Defendants. 20 21 It is hereby Stipulated between Plaintiffs Sarah Elizabeth Alexander and Robert Roy 22 Alexander, by and through counsel of record, Ash Marie Blackburn, Esq., of Mainor Wirth, LLP, 23 Defendant Valley Contax, Inc., by and through counsel of record, Alan W. Westbrook, Esq. of 24 Perry & Westbrook, P.C., and Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation, by through counsel of 25 record, Edgar Carranza, Esq., of Messner Reeves, LLP, that discovery in this action be stayed 26 pending resolution of Plaintiffs’ Motions for Spoliation of Evidence against each of the 27 Defendants (ECF Nos. 31 and 32). 28 PAGE 1 OF 4 1 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY. 2 On October 28, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial in the 3 Eighth Judicial District Court, District of Nevada. 4 On March 29, 2021,this matter was removed from the Eighth Judicial District Court to the 5 United States District Court, District of Nevada. See Notice of Removal and Errata to Notice of 6 Removal, (ECF No. 1 and ECF No.4). 7 On April 13, 2021, Defendant Costco filed its Statement of Removal, (ECF No. 7). 8 On April 28, 2021 the parties Joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order was granted 9 (ECF. No. 10). 10 On December 15, 2021 the Parties First Stipulation and Order to Extend Discovery Plan 11 12 and Scheduling Order was Granted (ECF No. 13). 13 On April 11, 2022 the Parties Second Stipulation and Order to Extend Discovery Plan and 14 Scheduling Order was Granted (ECF No. 15). 15 On September 19, 2022 the Parties Third Stipulation and Order to Extend Discovery Plan 16 and Scheduling Order was Granted (ECF No. 22). 17 On December 7, 2022 the Parties Fourth Stipulation and Order to Extend Discovery Plan 18 and Scheduling Order was Granted (ECF No. 28). 19 On April 4, 2023 the Parties Fifth Stipulation and Order to Extend Discovery Plan and 20 Scheduling Order was Granted (ECF No. 30). 21 On July 19, 2023 Plaintiffs filed their Motion For Spoliation of Evidence Against 22 Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation (ECF No. 31). 23 On July 19, 2023 Plaintiffs filed their Motion For Spoliation of Evidence Against 24 Defendant Valley Contax, Inc. (ECF No. 32). 25 Defendant Costo Wholesale Corporation’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Spoliation 26 of Evidence is currently due on August 2, 2023. 27 28 PAGE 2 OF 4 1 Defendant Valley Contax, Inc.’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Spoliation of 2 Evidence is currently due on August 2, 2023. 3 II. LEGAL ARGUMENT 4 The district court has “wide discretion in controlling discovery.” Little v. Seattle, 863 5 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1) (describing the court’s ability to 6 limit the scope of discovery). Ultimately, when deciding whether to grant a stay of discovery, a 7 court is guided by the objectives of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 that ensures a “just, speedy, 8 and inexpensive determination of every action.” Schrader v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, 2021 WL 9 4810324, *3 (D. Nev. Oct. 14, 2021) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 1); see also Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, 10 Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011) (explaining that courts evaluating the propriety of a stay 11 12 have cautioned against the use of resources that may be rendered unnecessary, noting the simple, 13 but accurate principle: “Discovery is expensive”). 14 Plaintiffs Motions for Spoliation of Evidence against each Defendant are pending before 15 the Court and are seeking the ultimate sanction of striking each Defendant’s answer. See ECF 16 Nos. 31 and 32. Additional lesser sanctions are also outlined and requested in the Motions if this 17 Court does not find grounds to strike. Id. Responsive pleadings from each Defendant are currently 18 due August 2, 2023. The Parties have agreed that discovery should be stayed until the Court has 19 decided the Motions for Spoliation of Evidence. Since the Court’s ruling(s) on the Motions for 20 Spoliation of Evidence could potentially result in dismissal of parts of Defendants’ case, it would 21 be an inefficient use of resources to engage in additional discovery prior to the Court’s ruling. 22 See Sibley v. U.S. Sup. Ct., 786 F. Supp. 2d 338, 346 (D.D.C. 2011) (“[I]t is well settled that 23 discovery is generally considered inappropriate while a motion that would be thoroughly 24 dispositive of the claims in the Complaint is pending.”). 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 PAGE 3 OF 4 1 III. CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Parties respectfully request the Court stay all discovery until a 3 decision is issued onPlaintiffs’ Motions for Spoliation of Evidence. 4 5 Dated this 25th day of July, 2023. Dated this 25th day of July, 2023. 6 PERRY & WESTBROOK MAINOR WIRTH, LLP 7 /s/ Alan Westbrook /s/ AshMarie Blackburn _________ ALAN W. WESTBROOK, ESQ. ASH MARIE BLACKBURN, ESQ. 8 Nevada Bar No. 6167 Nevada Bar No. 14712 9 11500 S. Eastern Avenue, Ste. 140 6018 S. Fort Apache Road, Ste. 150 Henderson, NV 89052 Las Vegas, NV 89148 10 Attorney for Defendant Valley Contax Inc. Attorney for Plaintiffs, Sarah Elizabeth Alexander and Robert Roy Alexander 11 12 Dated this 25th day of July, 2023. 13 MESSNER REEVES, LLP 14 /s/ Edgar Carranza . 15 EDGAR CARRANZA, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 5902 16 8945 W. Russell Road, Suite 300 Las Vegas, NV89148 17 Attorney for Defendants, Costco Wholesale 18 19 IT IS SOORDERED. 20 DATEDthis 27thday of July, 2023. 21 ____________________________________ 22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 PAGE 4OF4

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Alexander v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alexander-v-costco-wholesale-corporation-nvd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack