Ramos-Quirarte v. Omandac

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 6] LUCIA RAMOS-QUIRARTE, Case No. 2:23-cv-01778-RFB-NJK 7 Plaintiff(s), Order v. 9] STATE OF NEVADA, et al., 10 Defendant(s). 1] On January 4, 2024, the Court denied Defendants’ motion to stay discovery and ordered 12] that a joint proposed discovery plan must be filed by January 17, 2024. Docket No. 17. Although 13}| Defendants filed an objection and a motion to stay operation of that order, which remain pending, 14] Docket Nos. 18, 19,' neither circumstance alleviates the duty to comply with the order to file a 15} joint proposed discovery plan: 16 It is well-established law that the filing of an objection to a magistrate judge’s order on a non-dispositive motion does not 17 automatically stay that order’s operation. It is also axiomatic that the filing of a motion to stay does not impact the obligation to 18 proceed; only an order granting such relief imposes a stay. 19 50 PlayUp, Inc. v. Mintas, 635 F. Supp. 3d 1087, 1093-94 (D. Nev. 2022) (quotations and citations

5 omitted). Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED to file a joint discovery plan by February 5, 2024. Failure to comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions.

33 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 29, 2024 24 25 Nancy J. = . United States Magistrate Judge 27 ' On January 24, 2024, United States District Judge Richard F. Boulware, II denied Defendants’ request for emergency consideration of their motion to stay operation of the 28] undersigned’s order pending resolution of their objection. Docket No. 20.