Doe v. Washoe County School District

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: June 2, 2023
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00111
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

«88 IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA oO oO 9 || JANE DOE as Guardian of J. DOE, a CASE NO.: 3:23-cv-00111-ART-CLB = minor, and in her individual capacity, nm 10 ORDER GRANTING Fo Plaintiffs, STIPULATION 3 TO STAY DISCOVERY vs. =

= WASHOE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, 13 a political subdivision of the State of Nevada, ~ itt BOARD OF TRUSTEES, and _ its 14 || SUPERINTENDENT, DR. SUSAN ENFIELD, DOES I-XX and ROE 2 15 entities I-XX, 16 Defendants. eee 17 18 Plaintiffs Jane Doe as Guardian of J. Doe, a minor, and in her individual capacity 19 || (Plaintiffs) and Defendants Washoe County School District (District), a political subdivision of 20 ||the State of Nevada, its Board of Trustees (Board), and Superintendent Dr. Susan Enfield 21 || (collectively referred to as Defendants), hereinafter referred to collectively as the Parties, by and 22 || though their respective counsel, and hereby stipulate and agree, pursuant to Civil Local Rules IA 23 || 6-1, IA 6-2 and 7-1, as follows: 24 ///

] 1. The Parties stipulate that discovery in this matter be stayed until the Court issues 2 || aruling on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 15). 3 2. On May 5, 2023, Plaintiffs served their Complaint (ECF No. 1) upon the District 4 || and Superintendent Enfield. 5 3. On May 16, 2023, the Board waived service of process for the Summons and 6 ||Complaint. See ECF No. 13. 7 4. On May 23, 2023, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 15) seeking ° 8 dismiss all of Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants as a matter of law pursuant to FRCP 9 || 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. 10 5. Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is due June 6, 2023. 11 6. The Parties agree it is in the best interest of all Parties to await the Court’s ruling

S 12 || on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 15) prior to setting discovery deadlines and incurring 2 13 the time and expense of written discovery and depositions, in the event the Court dismisses the 14 || claims against Defendants in whole or in part. 5 15 7. As the Ninth Circuit has confirmed, “(t)he purpose of F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) is to 16 || enable defendants to challenge the legal sufficiency of complaints without subjecting themselves 17 || to discovery.” Rutman Wine Co. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, 829 F.2d 729, 738 (9th Cir. 1987). 18 || Likewise, a district court has “wide discretion in controlling discovery.” Little v. City of Seattle, 19 || 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988); see also FRCP 26(d)(1) (describing the court’s ability to limit 20 || the scope of discovery). Ultimately, when deciding whether to grant a stay of discovery, a court 21 ||1s guided by the objectives of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure | that ensures a “just, speedy, and 22 ||inexpensive determination of every action.” Schrader v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, 2021 WL 23 || 4810324, *3 (D. Nev. Oct. 14, 2021) (quoting FRCP 1); see also Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 24 || 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011) (explaining that courts evaluating the propriety of a stay have

1 || cautioned against the use of resources that may be rendered unnecessary, noting the simple, but 2 || accurate principle: “Discovery is expensive”). 3 8. The Parties are in agreement that discovery is not required for the Court to decide 4 || Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. As the Court’s ruling could potentially result in dismissal of 5 ||some or all of the claims against District, it would be an inefficient use of resources to engage in 6 || discovery prior to the Court’s ruling. See Sibley v. U.S. Sup. Ct., 786 F. Supp. 2d 338, 346 (D.D.C. 7 || 2011) (“()t is well settled that discovery is generally considered inappropriate while a motion

° 8 || that would be thoroughly dispositive of the claims in the Complaint is pending.”’). As such, it is 9 || within the Court’s power to grant a stay of discovery at this time. 10 9. Accordingly, the Parties, after consultation with one another, have determined it

11 || would be in the best interest of all Parties to request that this Court grant a stay of discovery until

S 12 || the Court renders a decision on Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss. None of the Parties 2 13 || believe this delay will cause harm to their ability to conduct discovery in this matter, nor will it 14 || cause either side to be in a worse position. 5 15 10. The Parties believe that, by not expending more funds or time until the Motion to 16 || Dismiss is resolved, the Parties have put themselves in the best position possible to preserve 17 resources and protect their respective funds. See FRCP 1 and LR 1-1. The interests of litigation 18 || efficiency and judicial economy are also promoted by a stay of discovery. 19 |} /// 20 /// 21 22 23 24

] 11. The Parties further stipulate to delay submission of the stipulated discovery plan 2 || and discovery order for thirty (30) days after this Court files its decision on Defendants’ pending 3 || Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 15). 4 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 5 DATED this day of June, 2023. DATED this 2™ day of June, 2023. 6 CHATTAH LAW GROUP JOEY GILBERT LAW 7 By: /s/Sigal Chattah, Esq. By: /s/Joey S. Gilbert, Esq. «C8 Sigal Chattah, Esq. Joey S. Gilbert, Esq. 3 Nev. Bar No. 8264 Nev. Bar No. 9033 9 chattahlaw@gmail.com joey@Joeygilbertlaw.com = 5875 S. Rainbow Blvd., #203 405 Marsh Avenue or 10 Las Vegas, Nevada 89118 Reno, Nevada 89509 a Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney for Plaintiff ll es 12 DATED this 2" day of June, 2023.

Zo = 13 WASHOE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 2K 14 OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL 6 6 By: /s/Neil A. Rombardo, Esq. 16 Neil A. Rombardo, Esq. Nev. Bar No. 6800 7 nrombardo@washoeschools.net Sara K. Montalvo, Esq. 18 Nev. Bar No. 11899 sara.montalvo@washoeschools.net 19 P.O. Box 30425 Reno, Nevada 89520-3425 0 Attorneys for Defendants

21 ORDER 22 IT IS SO ORDERED this2"¢_ d June 2023 , » 23 24 ITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE