Williams v. Westgate Las Vegas Resort & Casino
This text of Williams v. Westgate Las Vegas Resort & Casino (Williams v. Westgate Las Vegas Resort & Casino) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Berthinia S. Williams, 2:25-cv-00249-MMD-MDC 4 Plaintiff, ORDER 5 vs. 6 Westgate Las Vegas Resort & Casino, et al., 7 Defendant. 8 Pending before the Court is defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 27) and Motion for 9 Extension of Time (ECF No. 28). For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the motions. 10 DISCUSSION 11 I. BACKGROUND 12 Plaintiff brings discrimination and defamation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 13 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq.; Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 14 12112, et seq.; and NRS 200.510. Plaintiff alleges she was wrongfully terminated in violation of Title 15 VII and the ADA because of her “mental illness outburst.” See ECF No. 20. 16 Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 21) on April 9, 2025. Thereafter, on May 19, 17 2025, defendants filed a Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 27), seeking to stay discovery pending 18 adjudication of the Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff initially did not oppose the Motion to Stay Discovery and 19 the time to do so passed. On June 9, 2025, plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 28), 20 seeking an extension to file her Response to the Motion to Stay Discovery (“Response”) (ECF No. 28). 21 The Court addresses the pending motions below. 22 II. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 23 Plaintiff failed to timely oppose the Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 27). However, plaintiff’s 24 Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 28) addresses plaintiff’s failure. Plaintiff states that she failed to 25 receive notice of the Motion to Stay Discovery because the notice was sent to a prior email. ECF No. 28. 1 Having reviewed the docket, the Court notes that plaintiff filed a Notice of Change of Address (ECF No. 2 23) on April 23, 2025, updating her email. Despite this update, it appears that the CM/ECF notice 3 regarding the Motion to Stay Discovery was sent to plaintiff’s old email address. All other CM/ECF 4 receipts after the Motion to Stay Discovery was filed were sent to plaintiff’s current email on file. 5 Having found good cause, the Court grants the Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 28) and deems 6 plaintiff’s Response (ECF No. 29) timely filed, nunc pro tunc. 7 III. MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY 8 Defendants move to stay discovery pending determination of their Motion to Dismiss. See ECF 9 No. 27. Under the pragmatic approach, the Court finds that [1] the motion to dismiss can be determined 10 without discovery and [2] good cause exists to stay discovery. 11 A. Legal Standard 12 a. The Court Has Inherent Discretion To Control Discovery 13 Federal courts have the “power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every 14 court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 15 counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254, 57 S. Ct. 163, 81 L. Ed. 153 (1936). 16 “The district court has wide discretion in controlling discovery[.]” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 17 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011) (citing Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988)). 18 When considering a motion to stay discovery while a dispositive motion is pending, “this court 19 considers the goal of Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which directs that the Rules shall 20 ‘be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every 21 action.’” Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 602 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 1). Thus, the Court may consider staying 22 discovery pursuant to its inherent powers and discretion, together with the goals pronounced by Rule 1. 23 b. The Pragmatic Approach 24 The undersigned Magistrate Judge previously adopted the pragmatic approach when considering 25 motions to stay discovery because a dispositive motion is pending. Aristocrat Techs., Inc. v. Light & 1 Wonder, Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90611, at *4 (D. Nev. May 21, 2024). The pragmatic approach 2 considers only the following two elements: (1) if the dispositive motion can be decided without further 3 discovery; and (2) good cause exists to stay discovery. Id. 4 B. Discovery Is Not Needed For The Motion To Dismiss 5 Defendants argue that discovery is not needed to determine their Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6 21), and plaintiff does not oppose the statement. Plaintiff response does not address whether discovery is 7 needed to determine the Motion to Dismiss. See ECF No. 28. The Court agrees with defendants that 8 motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is a question of law and 9 can be determined without discovery. See Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001) 10 (“Indeed, factual challenges to a plaintiff's complaint have no bearing on the legal sufficiency of the 11 allegations under Rule 12(b)(6).”). 12 C. Good Cause Exists To Stay Discovery 13 Good cause exists to stay discovery. The good cause element under the pragmatic approach is 14 sufficiently broad to allow a court to operate within its discretion and the objectives of Rule 1. For 15 example, good cause may be found where a movant seeks to stay discovery to prevent undue burden or 16 expense. Schrader, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198974, *12; Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). Good cause may also 17 exist where a staying discovery secures “the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination” of the action. 18 Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.; Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 603 (D. Nev. 2011) (“[T]his court's role 19 is to evaluate the propriety of an order staying or limiting discovery with the goal of accomplishing the 20 objectives of Rule 1.”). Rule 1 provide that the federal rules should “be construed and administered to 21 secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Thus, 22 resolution of the Motion to Dismiss would provide for either a clear and concise statement of the claims 23 against defendants or complete dismissal of plaintiff’s claims and save both parties from the expenses of 24 unnecessary discovery at this time. 25 1 2 ACCORDINGLY, 3 IT IS ORDERED that: 4 1. The Motion to Extend Time (ECF No. 28) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Response (ECF No. 29) 5 to the Motion to Stay Discovery is deemed timely filed, nunc pro tunc. 6 2. The Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 27) is GRANTED. 7 3. Ifthe Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 21) is denied in whole or in part, the parties shall file a g Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order within 14-days of such. 9 . DATED this 23rd day of June 2025. “7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Lf a4 Lb Ld Hon. Maswniliano DiCouyilliet II 12 United&tates Magiéérate dge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Williams v. Westgate Las Vegas Resort & Casino, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-westgate-las-vegas-resort-casino-nvd-2025.