Walsh v. Unforgettable Coatings, Inc.

Opinion

1 PAUL T. TRIMMER, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 9291 2 JOSHUA A. SLIKER, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 12493 3 HOLLY E. WALKER, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 14295 4 JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 300 S. Fourth Street, Suite 900 5 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Telephone: (702) 921-2460 6 Email: paul.trimmer@jacksonlewis.com Email: joshua.sliker@jacksonlewis.com 7 Email: holly.walker@jacksonlewis.com 8 RICK J. SUTHERLAND, ESQ. Admitted pro hac vice 9 JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 215 S. State Street, Suite 760 10 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone: (801) 736-3199 11 Email: rick.sutherland@jacksonlewis.com 12 MARK A. HUTCHISON, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 4639 13 HUTCHISON & STEFFEN, PLLC 10080 W. Alta Dr., Suite 200 14 Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 Telephone: (702) 385-2500 15 Email: mhutchison@hutchlegal.com 16 Attorneys for Defendants 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 18 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 19 Martin J. Walsh, Case No.: 2:20-cv-00510-KJD-DJA Secretary of Labor, 20 United States Department of Labor, 21 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO TEMPORARILY STAY DISCOVERY 22 vs. 23 Unforgettable Coatings, Inc.; Unforgettable Coatings of Idaho, LLC, dba Unforgettable 24 Coatings; Unforgettable Coatings of Arizona, LLC, dba Unforgettable Coatings; 25 Unforgettable Coatings of Utah, Inc., dba 26 Unforgettable Coatings; Blue Ape Painting, LLC; Shaun McMurray; Shane Sandall; Cory 27 Summerhays; and Galia Carrejo, 1 Plaintiff Martin J. Walsh (“Plaintiff”), and Defendants Unforgettable Coatings, Inc., 2 Unforgettable Coatings of Idaho, LLC, Unforgettable Coatings of Arizona, LLC, Unforgettable 3 Coatings of Utah, Inc., Blue Ape Painting, LLC, Shaun McMurray, Shane Sandall, Cory 4 Summerhays, and Galia Carrejo (collectively, “Defendants”), by and through their respective 5 counsel of record, hereby stipulate and agree to stay discovery until November 29, 2021 as set forth 6 below. 7 1. On March 12, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Complaint asserting violations of the Fair Labor 8 Standards Act against Defendants. ECF No. 1. 9 2. On June 26, 2020, the Court entered a Scheduling Order in which the discovery cut- 10 off, including the hearing of discovery motions, was set for December 13, 2020, dispositive motion 11 deadline was set for January 12, 2021, pre-trial conference was set for June 7, 2021, and trial was 12 set for June 14, 2021. ECF No. 34. 13 3. On November 5, 2020, the Court approved the parties’ stipulation to extend the close 14 of discovery to August 28, 2021 and the dispositive motion deadline to September 28, 2021. ECF 15 No. 51. 16 4. Following denial of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 25, 29) on March 30, 17 2021 (ECF No. 59), Defendants filed their Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint on April 13, 2021. ECF 18 No. 61. 19 5. Pursuant to stipulation, Plaintiff subsequently filed his First Amended Complaint on 20 April 27, 2021. ECF Nos. 63 and 64. 21 6. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint was filed on 22 May 27, 2021 and remains pending before the Court. ECF No. 61. As such, Defendants have not 23 yet filed an Answer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. 24 7. On July 13, 2021, the Court approved the parties’ stipulation to extend the close of 25 discovery to November 19, 2021 and the dispositive motion deadline to December 19, 2021. ECF 26 No. 79. 27 8. On October 27, 2021, the parties filed a Stipulation and Order to Continue Discovery 1 to January 14, 2022, and the dispositive motions deadline to February 14, 2022. Id. The parties 2 would have through and including February 14, 2022 to file dispositive motions, which is thirty 3 (30) days after the discovery deadline. The Court granted the Stipulation on October 28, 2021. ECF 4 No. 99. 5 9. On October 27, 2021, Defendants filed an Emergency Motion for Entry of an Interim 6 Protective Order and to Set Expedited Briefing Schedule (ECF No. 97), which the Court granted in 7 part on October 28, 2021. ECF No. 99. Pursuant to the Court’s Order, Defendants filed a motion 8 for protective order on November 5, 2021 which provides more fulsome briefing regarding the 9 issues identified in Defendants’ Emergency Motion. ECF No. 103. Plaintiff filed a response on 10 November 10, 2021. ECF No. 106. Defendants’ reply is due on November 12, 2021. 11 10. On November 2, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Protective Order Regarding the 12 Identities of Informers. (ECF 101). Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion is by November 13 16, 2021. 14 11. Defendants were scheduled to conduct the depositions of six witnesses between 15 November 6, 2021 and November 15, 2021, but temporarily vacated them to be rescheduled at a 16 later date in accordance with the instant Stipulation. In addition, following the Court’s ruling on 17 Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order, the parties will need to schedule the depositions of 5-6 18 witnesses that Plaintiff intends to depose, but whose depositions were temporarily vacated pending 19 the Court’s decision on Defendants’ forthcoming Motion for Protective Order. 20 12. Following a meet and confer effort, the parties have agreed to a temporary stay of 21 discovery until November 29, 2021. A stay will conserve the parties’ respective resources and avoid 22 duplicative discovery by potentially having to depose various witnesses for a second time. This will 23 also alleviate the burden of potential repeat discovery on the witnesses who have not yet been 24 deposed. 25 13. At this time, the parties have not reached agreement to stay discovery beyond 26 November 29, 2021. Nonetheless, the parties agree that no party, by virtue of entering into this 27 Stipulation, is waiving any right to seek a stay of discovery or extension thereof in the future. 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). When deciding whether to grant a stay of discovery, a court 1 guided by the objectives of FRCP | that ensures a “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination o every action.” Jd. Courts evaluating the propriety of a stay have cautioned against the use o resources that may be rendered unnecessary, noting the simple, but accurate principle: “Discover is expensive.” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). It is in light of th mandate of FRCP | for which the parties seek a stay of discovery. 15. The parties make the identified request in good faith and not to unduly delay th final disposition of this matter. The parties believe that the requested stay would preserve judicia resources in this matter. 10 16. Nothing in this Stipulation, nor the fact of entering to the same, shall be construe 11 as waiving any claim and/or defense held by any party, including waiving the right of any party t 12 conduct discovery under the current Scheduling Order or to seek further modifications to th 13 discovery schedule. 14 Dated this 15th day of November 2021. 15 UNITED STATES JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 16 || DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 17 /s/ Kathryn A. Panaccione /s/ Joshua Sliker 18 || Charles C. Song Paul T. Trimmer, State Bar No. 9291 Susan G. Kumli Joshua A. Sliker, State Bar No. 12493 19 || Andrew J. Schultz Holly E. Walker, State Bar No. 14295 Jessica M. Flores 300 S. Fourth Street, Suite 900 20 Kathryn A. Panaccione Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 1 350 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 370 Los Angeles, California 90071 Attorneys for Defendants 22 Attorneys for Plaintiff 23 ORDER 24 ITIS ORDERED. 25 \) o> □ 26 SAY (YO DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 27 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 DATED: November 16, 2021