Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Searching dockets in Bellagio Llc x
Alert me of new activity
All Case Activity Alerts Include: Answers, Appeals, Complaints, Motions, Orders, Trial Notes
Civil Rights: Jobs | Nevada
Response
RESPONSE to 67 Stipulation by Defendants Bellagio, LLC, MGM Resorts International. (Butterfield, Chad)
Minute Order Order on Stipulation Order on Motion to Stay Case
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Magistrate Judge Maximiliano D. Couvillier, III on 6/23/2026. ORDER Denying 73 Stipulation; ORDER Denying 75 Motion to Stay Case. Plaintiffs Emergency Unilateral Stipulation Re: Discovery Dispute at ECF No. 73 is DENIED. Local Rule 7-4(c) provides that "The court may determine whether any matter submitted as an 'emergency' is, in fact, an emergency." Id. The Court determines that neither the timing nor location of plaintiff's deposition constitute an emergency. Further, plaintiff provides no authority or shown good cause why his deposition must occur at a neutral location. The parties also failed to comply with the Court's Standing Order (ECF No. 5) in resolving discovery disputes or demonstrated good cause for filing a unilateral stipulation. Plaintiff failed to meaningfully meet and confer and comply with the Court's Standing Order (ECF No. 5) regarding defendants' subpoenas. The parties also failed to meaningfully meet and confer regarding plaintiff's deposition.
Moreover, both parties seek to stay discovery (see ECF Nos. 73, 75) and reasonable minds should have been able to reach a compromise had a meaningful meet-and-confer occurred; one in which the parties respectfully expressed their positions and then considered reciprocal concessions in an effort to compromise. The meet-and-confer process need not be complicated or conditioned upon unilateral conditions or rules. The meet-and-confer substance is what matters. The Court appreciates that plaintiff is pro-se but he is expected to follow the rules, and the parties are expected to cooperate and be reasonable. Thus, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 75) is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall meet and confer and discuss the pending discovery issues, including their respective desires to stay discovery (as set forth in ECF Nos. 67, 73, 75). If the parties are unable to reach a resolution they must file a Stipulation Regarding Discovery Dispute per the Court's Standing Order (ECF No. 5). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that failure to comply with the Court's Standing Order (ECF No. 5) will result in sanctions.
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login
Email (NOTE: Free email domains not supported)
First Name
Last Name
Job Title
Phone
PLEASE NOTE: A verification email will be sent to your address before you can access your trial.
Password (at least 8 characters required)
Confirm Password
Law360 UK may contact you in your professional capacity with information about our other products, services and events that we believe may be of interest.You’ll be able to update your communication preferences via the unsubscribe link provided within our communications.We take your privacy seriously. Please see our Privacy Policy.