Padilla v. Nevada Gaming Control Board

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 SHAWN PADILLA, Case No. 2:22-cv-02109-RFB-EJY

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 MGM GRAND HOTEL, LLC, a Nevada entity; ANDREW STEVENSON, an 8 individual (Doe 1); KEVIN ADAMS, an individual (Doe 2); JERIMIAH TIPTON (Doe 9 3); DOES IV through X, and ROSE I through X, 10 Defendants. 11 12 There are now six motions pending before the undersigned,1 all of which are interrelated. 13 See ECF No. 99 (MGM Grand Hotel’s Motion for Protective Order) ripe on June 14, 2025; ECF No. 14 100 (MGM Grand Hotel’s Motion to Quash Subpoena for William Hornbuckle) ripe on June 14, 15 2025; ECF No. 109 (MGM Grand Hotel’s Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines) ripe on June 18, 16 2025; ECF No. 112 (MGM Grand Hotel’s Motion for Leave to File Supplement to Motion for 17 Protective Order and Motion to Quash Subpoena) ripe on June 6, 2025; ECF No. 114 (Plaintiff’s 18 Motion to Compel) ripe on July 29, 2025; and now ECF No. 131. The Court has an extremely busy 19 docket and works as quickly and thoroughly as possible to resolve issues presented. The present 20 Emergency Motion does not speed up that process. Further, the issues presented in the pending 21 Motions including, but not limited to, an effort to depose the Chief Executive Officer of MGM 22 Resorts International, are not considered lightly. Indeed, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel concerns a 23 matter of significant importance. Each of these issues will be considered and decided in due course 24 and as soon as reasonably possible. 25 The above said, Plaintiff presents no basis for reconsideration of the Court’s Minute Order 26 at ECF No. 110. “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly 27 discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if 1 there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Moraga v. Wolfson, Case No. 2:16-cv-287-JCM 2 (VCF), 2019 WL 11707395, at *1 (D. Nev. Oct. 10, 2019), quoting School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, 3 Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Neither the passage of time nor Plaintiff’s agreement in 4 August to extend discovery to October (rejected by Defendants) present newly discovered evidence, 5 a clear error, manifest injustice, or a change in controlling law. Further, the Court will not issue a 6 scheduling order without consideration of all the issues presented and there is no basis for a status 7 check as there is nothing to check at this time. 8 Nonetheless, the Court finds the parties must meet and confer, in good faith and toward the 9 goal of compromise, to determine if there is any discovery that may proceed without implicating 10 discovery that is contested and at issue in pending motions. The Court encourages the parties to find 11 common ground so that discovery that may proceed does, in fact, proceed. 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Request a 13 Status Check on the Court’s Stay of Proceedings, ECF No. 110 (ECF No. 131) is DENIED. 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Request for Reconsideration (ECF No. 132) is 15 DENIED. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties must, in good faith and in earnest, meet and 17 confer to discuss what, if any, discovery that is unrelated to the pending Motion for Protective Order, 18 Motion to Quash, and Motion to Compel may proceed while the Court considers the issues presented 19 in each of these Motions. The parties are encouraged to find common ground and compromise 20 regarding discovery that may be conducted. If the parties find compromise they are to advise the 21 Court in a joint status report no later than August 29, 2025. 22 Dated this 12th day of August, 2025. 23

24 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27