Sanguinetti v. Nevada Restaurant Services, Inc.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: November 3, 2022
• Docket: 2:21-cv-01768
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 Sara Sanguinetti, individually and on Case No. 2:21-cv-01768-RFB-DJA behalf of all others similarly situated, 7 Plaintiff, Order 8 v. 9 Nevada Restaurant Services, Inc., 10 Defendant. 11 12 Raymond D. Speight, individually and on 13 behalf of all others similarly situated,

14 Plaintiff,

15 v.

16 Nevada Restaurant Services, Inc.,

17 Defendant.

18 19 Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ and Defendant’s competing discovery plans. (ECF Nos. 20 50 and 51). Plaintiffs argue that discovery should not be bifurcated into merits discovery and 21 class discovery but should proceed as normal. (ECF No. 50). Defendant argues that discovery 22 should be bifurcated so that the parties do not engage in class discovery until the Court rules on 23 Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 51). Because the Court finds that 24 bifurcating discovery would complicate the case, it denies Defendant’s discovery plan and grants 25 Plaintiffs’ discovery plan in part. 26 The court has broad discretion in controlling discovery. See Little v. Seattle, 863 27 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). Obertman v. Electrolux Home Care Products, Inc. stands 1 more than it simplifies them. Obertman v. Electrolux Home Care Products, Inc., No. 2 2:19-cv-02487-KJM-AC, 2020 WL 8834885, *2 (E.D. Cal. June 18, 2020). There, the 3 defendant asserted that “bifurcation of discovery will promote efficiency and fairness, 4 because it will prevent defendant from having to engage in costly, class-wide merits- 5 based discovery when plaintiff’s case may never get past the class-certification stage.” 6 Id. at *1. The court disagreed, finding that class-certification analysis “frequently will 7 overlap with those relevant to the merits of the case.” Id. at *2. “[S]eparating merits 8 and class discovery raise[s] a slew of issues as to what discovery relates to the class, as 9 opposed to the named plaintiffs, thereby causing additional litigation regarding the 10 distinction between the two, and can sometimes thwart the informed judicial assessment 11 that current class certification practice emphasizes.” Id. (quoting Ahmed v. HSBC Bank 12 USA, Nat’l Ass’n, No. EDCV152057 FMO SPX, 2018 WL 501413, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13 5, 2018)) (internal quotations omitted). 14 Here, Defendant makes similar arguments to the defendant in Obertman, and the Court 15 disagrees for the same reasons. Defendant asks to conduct discovery into the merits of Plaintiffs’ 16 individual cases before beginning class discovery. But, as Plaintiffs point out, the discovery is 17 likely to overlap. (ECF No. 50 at 3). And determining discovery motions over whether 18 discovery falls into “merits” or “class” distinctions will place an unnecessary strain on judicial 19 resources. 20 However, the Court declines to grant Plaintiffs’ request for a special master. Plaintiffs 21 provide no reasoning or support for their request other than the inability of the parties to agree on 22 a discovery schedule. Without more, the Court will not grant this request.1 23 24

25 1 Defendant also “objects to Plaintiffs’ proposal to move for class certification at the close of discovery, which violates FRCP 23’s requirement for the Court to determine whether to certify 26 the action ‘[a]t an early practicable time’ in the litigation.” (ECF No. 51 at 4). But this proposal 27 does not appear in Plaintiffs’ proposed discovery plan. Because the Court only addresses fully developed arguments, it will not consider this here. See Albedyll v. Walmart Inc., No. 2:19-cv- 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s discovery plan (ECF No. 51) is 2 denied. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ discovery plan (ECF No. 50) is granted in 4 part and denied in part. Discovery shall proceed according to the following schedule: 5 6 Amending pleadings and adding parties February 25, 2023 7 Expert disclosures March 26, 2023 8 Rebuttal expert disclosures April 26, 2023 9 Close of discovery May 25, 2023 10 Dispositive motions June 25, 2023 11 Pretrial order2 July 25, 2023 12 13 DATED: November 3, 2022 14

16 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2 Under Local Rule 26-1(b)(5), if dispositive motions are filed, the deadline for filing the joint pretrial order will be suspended until 30-days after decision on the dispositive