Shackerford v. Macedo

Opinion

Attorney General 2 RUDOLF M. D’SILVA (Bar No. 16227) Deputy Attorney General 3 State of Nevada Office of the Attorney General 4 1 State of Nevada Way, Suite 100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 5 (702) 486-3375 (phone) (702) 486-3768 (fax) 6 Email: rdsilva@ag.nv.gov

7 Attorneys for Defendants

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10 SYDNEY SHACKERFORD, Case No. 2:23-cv-02069-GMN-DJA

11 Plaintiff,

12 v. STIPULATION TO STAY DISCOVERY

13 MACEDO, et al.,

14 Defendants. 15 Plaintiff Sydney Shackerford, by and through his counsel, Peter Angulo Esq., and 16 Defendants, by and through Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General for the State of Nevada, and 17 Rudolf M. D’Silva, Deputy Attorney General, hereby stipulates to stay discovery in this 18 matter. 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 On August 25, 2025, after Plaintiff’s counsel deposed a witness to this lawsuit, the 21 Parties had an opportunity to meet and confer. See LR 26-6(c). Defense counsel informed 22 Plaintiff’s counsel that they were planning on filing an Early Exhaustion Motion for 23 Summary Judgment (MSJ). Defense counsel informed Plaintiff’s counsel that the state was 24 experiencing technical issues that morning, but Defendants planned on filing their MSJ by 25 Tuesday, September 2, 2025. Later that day Plaintiff’s counsel sent Defense counsel an 26 email informing him he would be willing to stipulate to a stay of discovery until the Court 27 rendered a decision on Defendants MSJ. 28 2 was experiencing as of this date was due to a sophisticated cyberattack orchestrated by 3 unknown assailants on the State of Nevada’s computer networks. As a result, Defense 4 counsel has not had access to files necessary to draft Defendants’ MSJ. 5 Due to the pending cyberattack, which has not been resolved as of this date, and 6 Defendants intent to file an Early Exhaustion Motion for Summary Judgment once the 7 State has restored its systems damaged during this cyberattack, the Parties have agreed 8 to stipulate to stay discovery until this Court renders a decision on Defendants’ MSJ. 9 II. LEGAL STANDARD 10 Courts have broad discretionary power to control discovery. See, e.g., Little v. City of 11 Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir.1988). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not 12 provide for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is 13 pending.” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). Instead, a party 14 seeking to stay discovery carries the burden of making a strong showing why discovery 15 should be denied. See, e.g., Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F. R. D. 16 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997). In deciding whether to grant a stay of discovery, the court is guided 17 by the objectives of FED. R. CIV. P. 1 to ensure a “just, speedy, and inexpensive 18 determination of every action.” Tradebay, 278 F. R.D. at 602–03. Staying discovery when a 19 court is convinced that the plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief furthers the 20 goal of efficiency for the court and the litigants. Little, 863 F.2d at 685 (noting a stay of 21 discovery furthered the goal of efficiency where a party had moved for judgment on the 22 ground of qualified immunity). 23 Motions to stay discovery may be granted when: (1) the pending motion is potentially 24 dispositive; (2) the potentially dispositive motion can be decided without additional 25 discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the potentially 26 dispositive motion and is convinced that the plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for 27 relief. See Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F. R. D. 579 (D. Nev. 2013). 28 /// 2 Staying discovery in this case will further the goal of efficiency for this Court and 3 the Parties, as the three requirements set forth in Kor Media Group, LLC apply here. 4 Defendants contend that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) provides that 5 “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this 6 title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other 7 correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 8 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The MSJ Defendants intend on filing, once the States computer systems 9 have been restored, is potentially case dispositive as Defendants will be asking this Court 10 to dismiss all of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants for not properly exhausting his 11 administrative remedies pursuant to the PLRA. If this Court grants Defendants’ MSJ, 12 there will be no claim or defense that survives, and this case will be disposed of in its 13 entirety. 14 Defendants also believe the MSJ has a likelihood of success because as noted above, 15 pursuant to the PLRA, Plaintiff is required to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to 16 filing a lawsuit. Defendants contend that records show Plaintiff has not exhausted his 17 administrative remedies. Thus, Plaintiff is procedurally barred from moving forward with 18 this lawsuit. 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 Accordingly, the Parties respectfully request this Court stay discovery until it 2 ||renders a decision on Defendants’ MSJ which will be filed once the State has restored its 3 |}computer networks. 4 IT IS SO STIPULATED 5 || By: /s/ Peter Angulo By: /s/ Rudolf M. D’Silva PETER ANGULO (Bar No.3672) RUDOLF M. D’SILVA (Bar No. 16227) 6 || Attorney for Plaintiff Deputy Attorney General 7 Attorneys for Defendants 3 ITIS ORDERED:

10 HON. DANIEL\ALBREGTS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 DATED: 9/4/2025 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28