Boskovich v. Nye County District Attorney's Office

Opinion

1 RNEevBaEdCaC BAa Br RNUoC. 7H2, 8E9S Q. 2 LEMONS, GRUNDY & EISENBERG 6005 Plumas Street, Third Floor 3 Reno, Nevada 89519 4 (775) 786-6868; (775)786-9716 (fax) Email: rb@lge.net 5 Attorney for Defendant Nye County 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 10 RONNI BOSKOVICH, Case No: 2:21-cv-00670-JAD-DJA 11 Plaintiff, JOINT AND UNOPPOSED 12 v. MOTION TO STAY 13 DISCOVERY NYE COUNTY, a political subdivision, and 14 municipality including its department, NYE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S 15 OFFICE; CHRIS ARABIA, in his individual and official capacity; LEO BLUNDO, in his 16 individual and official capacity; DOES I-50; 17 and ROE CORPORATIONS I-50, 18 Defendants. 19 20 The parties through their counsel of record, Michael Balaban, Esq., on behalf of 21 Plaintiff Ronni Boskovich (“Boskovich”); Brian Hardy, Esq., of Marquis Aurbach Coffing, 22 on behalf of Nye County District Attorney Chris Arabia (“Arabia”) and Nye County 23 Commissioner Leo Blundo (“Blundo”); and Rebecca Bruch, Esq., of Lemons, Grundy & 24 Eisenberg, on behalf of Nye County (“the County”), do hereby file this Joint and 25 Unopposed Motion to Stay Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. 26 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 27 The basis for this Joint and Unopposed Motion to Stay Discovery is two-fold: First, 28 Boskovich admittedly has filed this complaint before she has exhausted her administrative 1 remedies. According to Boskovich, she did so in order to preserve the statute of limitations 2 on her other claims. More specifically, she has not yet received a right-to-sue letter 3 regarding the three Title VII claims she has brought. Second, Defendants Blundo and 4 Arabia have filed a Motion to Dismiss that could be dispositive on all claims against them. 5 The parties bring this motion jointly and without opposition. 6 I. Introduction 7 On December 2, 2020, Boskovich filed a Charge of Discrimination with the 8 Nevada Equal Rights Commission (“NERC”) and the Equal Employment Opportunity 9 Commission (“EEOC”). Boskovich must exhaust her administrative remedies before she 10 can file a lawsuit. Until she receives a right-to-sue letter addressing those claims brought 11 under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, litigation cannot be brought. 12 See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e05(f)(1). As is her right, Boskovich has requested her EEOC file be 13 closed without a finding, and that a right-to-sue letter be issued. She avers in her Complaint 14 that she has not received a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC. ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 14-15. As 15 of the filing of this Motion, she has not received a right-to-sue letter. 16 In Boskovich’s Complaint filed April 22, 2021, she asserted 10 causes of action 17 related to her termination from the Nye County District Attorney’s Office. ECF No. 1. 18 Those claims are: 19 1. Sex/Gender Discrimination in Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 20 2. Hostile Environment Sexual Harassment in Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights 21 Act 22 3. Retaliation in Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. 23 4. Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy 24 5. Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Equal Protection 25 6. Breach of Implied-In-Fact Contract 26 7. Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Delaing 27 8. Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage 28 9. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 1 10. Defamation 2 In response, on June 2, 2021, Blundo and Arabia filed a Motion to Dismiss all causes 3 of action pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6). ECF No. 6. The County filed its Answer on June 4 28, 2021. ECF No. 11. 5 Blundo and Arabia argue in their Motion to Dismiss, in addition to the failure to 6 exhaust administrative remedies, that the Complaint should be dismissed because (1) 7 Boskovich has failed to state a viable § 1983 claim against Blundo and Arabia; (2) 8 Boskovich did not allege facts which are plausibly suggestive of a claim for intentional 9 interference with prospective economic advantage against Blundo and Arabia; (3) 10 Boskovich failed to plead a plausible claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress 11 against Blundo and Arabia; and (4) Boskovich’s defamation claim against Blundo and 12 Arabia fails because it is based wholly on speculation. ECF No. 6. Blundo and Arabia 13 also argue Boskovich should not be allowed to amend her complaint as against them. 14 Blundo and Arabia allege the claims made by Boskovich involve bad faith, harassment, or 15 a dilatory motive. Id. 16 On June 16, 2021, Boskovich opposed the Motion to Dismiss, primarily arguing she 17 has met her burden under Iqbal and Twombly. ECF No. 11. Boskovich further argues 18 that even if the Court grants the Blundo and Arabia motion, she should have leave to amend 19 the complaint. 20 II. Legal Argument 21 Courts have broad discretionary power to control discovery. See, e.g., Little v. City 22 of Seattle, 863 F.2s 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). The party seeking a stay of discovery carries 23 the heavy burden of making a strong showing why discovery should be denied. See 24 Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D.Nev.2011). In this case all parties 25 agree discovery should be stayed. 26 Evaluation of a request for a stay often requires a “preliminary peek” at a pending 27 dispositive motion. This “preliminary peek” is not intended to prejudge the outcome, but 28 to evaluate the propriety of a stay of discovery with the goal of accomplishing the 1 objectives of Rule 1, which requires construing the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in a 2 manner to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action. See 3 Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 601. In doing so, a court must consider whether the preliminary 4 peek at the merits is potentially dispositive of the entire case, and whether the motion can 5 be decided without additional discovery. Id. at 602-603. 6 The parties agree that a temporary stay of discovery, including the procedural 7 requirements of FRCP Rule 26, and completion of a discovery plan and scheduling order, 8 will further the goal of judicial economy as well as reducing the costs to the parties in the 9 event the Motion to Dismiss is granted in whole or in part. They do not believe discovery 10 is necessary for the Court to decide the pending motion. In addition, it is without question 11 that Boskovich cannot proceed with her three Title VII claims until she receives a right-to- 12 sue letter from the EEOC. 13 [Remainder of page left intentionally blank.] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Based on the foregoing, the parties request that the Court grant this Joint and 2 || Unopposed Motion to Stay Discovery pending Boskovich’s receipt of a right-to-sue letter 3 well as the Court’s ruling on the pending Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Blundo 4 and Arabia. 5 DATED this 14th day of July, 2021. 6 LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL P. BALABAN 7 By: Michael Balaban 8 MICHAEL P. BALABAN, ESQ.(SBN9370) 10726 Del Rubini Street 9 Las Vegas, NV 89141 10 Attorneys for Plaintiff 11 LEMONS, GRUNDY & EISENBERG 12 By: _ /s/ Rebecca Bruch 13 REBECCA BRUCH, ESQ. (SBN7289) 14 6005 Plumas St., Third Floor Reno, Nevada 89519 15 Attorneys for Defendant Nye County 16 MARQUIS AURBACH COFFING 17 By: ___/s/ Brian Hardy 18 BRIAN R. HARDY, ESQ. (SBN10068) 19 KATHLEEN A. WILDE, ESQ (SBN12522) 10001 Park Run Drive 20 Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 Attorneys for Defendants 2] Chris Arabia and Leo Blundo 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a stipulated discovery plan and scheduling order within 14 days of an Order on the pending motion to dismiss (ECF No. 6). 25 DATED this 15th day of July 2021. 26 27 \

28 pF GRUNDY DANIEL J. ALBREGYS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE