Kuzova et al v. USDHS et al

Filing 55

ORDER that Plaintiffs Motion to Allow Discovery 53 is denied. The parties shall not engage in any discovery until further order of this Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 10/20/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

YANITA KUZOVA, et al.,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
)
HOMELAND SECURITY, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:10-cv-01711-GMN-GWF
ORDER
Motion to Allow Discovery (#53)

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Allow Discovery (#53), filed

14

on September 18, 2011, and Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to

15

Plaintiff’s Motion to Allow Discovery (#51), filed on October 6, 2011.

16

On August 3, 2011, the Court entered an Order (#44) staying all discovery in this matter

17

until further order of the Court. The Court entered the Order “based on the foregoing potentially

18

dispositive motion [Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (#30)] and threshold issues pending before the

19

District Court,” finding “that a stay of discovery in this case is appropriate as it will prevent the

20

wasting of time and effort of all concerned, and will make the most efficient use of judicial

21

resources.” (See # 44.) After the stay was entered, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (#47).

22

On September 7, 2011, the Court entered a Minute Order (#48), denying Defendant’s Motion to

23

Dismiss (#30) as moot in light of the Amended Complaint.

24

On September 18, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Notice (#49), informing the Court that the

25

administrative proceedings against Plaintiff Kuzova had been closed. Plaintiff also filed this

26

Motion to Allow Discovery (#53), requesting that the Court allow discovery “in light of the

27

procedural posture of the case,” and further requesting that the Court order Defendant to serve their

28

26(a) disclosures. Subsequently, on September 21, 2011, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss

1

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (#50). In this Motion, Defendant argues that all of Plaintiff’s

2

claims should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief

3

can be granted.

4

Although there has been recent activity in this case since the Court entered the order to stay

5

discovery, the posture of the case is nearly the same as when the Court ordered the stay of

6

discovery. There is currently a dispositve motion pending before the Court arguing threshold issues

7

such as lack of jurisdiction. The Court therefore finds no reason to lift the stay and allow discovery

8

to proceed in this matter. A stay of discovery in this case continues to be appropriate as it will

9

prevent the wasting of time and effort of all concerned, and will make the most efficient use of

10
11
12
13

judicial resources. Accordingly,
IT IS SO ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Allow Discovery (#53) is denied. The
parties shall not engage in any discovery until further order of this Court.
DATED this 20th day of October, 2011.

14
15
16

______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2