Armstrong v. Boulder City Hospital, Inc.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * MARILYN ARMSTRONG, Case No. 2:20-cv-02273-APG-DJA Plaintiff, v. BOULDER CITY HOSPITAL, INC., a Nevada non-profit corporation,

Defendant.

Before the Court is attorney Robert P. Spretnak’s motion to withdraw as attorney for Plaintiff Marilyn Armstrong and to stay discovery (ECF No. 22). Defendants filed a joinder to Spretnak’s motion (ECF No. 23). Spretnak requests that the Court stay discovery for 90 days while Plaintiff finds new counsel. Because the Court finds that Spretnak has met the requirements for withdrawing and because the Court finds that staying discovery would serve the just and inexpensive determination of this action, it grants Spretnak’s motion (ECF No. 22). The Court finds these matters properly resolved without a hearing. LR 78-1. I. Discussion. A. The Court grants Spretnak’s motion to withdraw as counsel. Spretnak’s motion to withdraw is granted. Under Local Rule IA 11-6, if an attorney seeks to withdraw after appearing in a case, the attorney must file a motion and serve it on the affected client and opposing counsel. The affected client can, but is not required to, file a response to the motion within 14 days. LR IA 11-6. Reviewing the motion for withdrawal, Spretnak has met the requirements under Local Rule IA 11-6. Spretnak asserts to have provided Plaintiff and Defendant’s counsel notice of the motion via mail and email. Although Spretnak does not claim to have served the documents, Spretnak raised no service objections. Finally, Plaintiff has not filed a response to Spretnak’s motion. The Court thus grant’s Spretnak’s motion to withdraw as counsel (ECF No. 22). B. The Court grants Spretnak’s motion to stay discovery. Although withdrawal of an attorney alone is not reason for delay of discovery, whether to grant a stay is within the court’s discretion. See LR IA 11-6(d); see Munoz-Santana v. U.S. I.N.S., 742 F.2d 561, 562 (9th Cir. 1984). In evaluating the propriety of an order staying or limiting discovery, this court considers the goal of Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which directs that the Rules shall “be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.” Ministerio Roca Solida v. U.S. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, 288 F.R.D. 500, 504 (D. Nev. Jan. 14, 2013). The Court grants Spretnak’s motion to stay discovery. While a stay is not automatic, the Court finds that staying discovery would accomplish the goal of Rule 1 by securing the just and inexpensive determination of this action. Without a stay, discovery would proceed which Plaintiff may be ill-equipped to handle and which may increase the workload and raise the costs of Plaintiff’s new counsel if and when she retains them. Defendant has also filed a joinder to the motion to stay (ECF No. 23) and has no objections. The Court thus grants Spretnak’s motion to stay discovery (ECF No. 22). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that attorney Robert P. Spretnak’s motion to withdraw as counsel and to stay discovery for 90 days (ECF No. 22) is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that discovery is stayed for 90 days from the date of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a stipulated discovery plan and scheduling order within 14 days of either the expiration of the 90-day stay, of Plaintiff retaining new counsel, or of Plaintiff appearing pro se in this matter, whichever is sooner. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk’s Office shall add Plaintiff’s last known address and contact information to the docket: Marilyn Armstrong ll 2016 Thames View Street Henderson, NV 89044 Marilynlb2068 @ gmail.com IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that withdrawing counsel shall serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff and file a notice of service within fourteen (14) days. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk’s Office shall mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at her last known address via United States Mail. DATED: June 25, 2021 ~ DANIEL J. ALBREGTS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE