Garity v. APWU-AFl-CIO et al

Filing 98

ORDER Granting 84 Motion to Stay Discovery. Discovery in this matter is stayed pending resolution of Defendants 81 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 5/22/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

ROSEMARY GARITY,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
APWU-AFL-CIO,
)
APWU LOCAL #7156,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:11-cv-01110-KJD-CWH
ORDER

13

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (#84), filed

14

February 23, 2012. By way of this motion, Defendants’ request that the Court stay discovery

15

pending resolution of their pending motion to dismiss (#81). The motion is unopposed.

16

Pursuant to Local Rule (“LR”) 7-2(b), “[u]nless otherwise ordered by the Court, points and

17

authorities in response shall be filed and served by an opposing party fourteen (14) days after service

18

of the motion.” Further, as a general matter, courts have broad discretionary power to control

19

discovery. See e.g., Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). In Tradebay, LLC v.

20

eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597 (D. Nev. 2011), the court undertook a detailed and thorough review of

21

the state of the law as pertains to staying discovery. The court determined that, in light of the

22

directive in Rule 1 to construe the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in a manner to “secure the just,

23

speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action,” the preferred approach remains as was

24

previously set forth in Twin City Fire Insurance v. Employers of Wausau, 124 F.R.D. 652 (D. Nev.

25

1989) and Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554 (D. Nev. 1997).

26

Generally, a pending dispositive motion is not “a situation that in and of itself would warrant a stay

27

of discovery” unless jurisdiction, venue, or immunity are preliminary issues. See Turner

28

Broadcasting, 175 F.R.D. at 554, 555-6 (quoting Twin City, 124 F.R.D. at 652).
The party seeking a stay of discovery “carries the heavy burden of making a strong showing

1

why discovery should be denied.” Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 601 (citing Turner Broadcasting, 175

2

F.R.D. at 556. Dispositive motions are a frequent part of federal practice. An overly lenient

3

standard for granting requests to stay due to pending dispositive motions would result in

4

unnecessary delay in many cases. Thus, in the context of a pending Rule 12(b)(6) motion, “[a] stay

5

of discovery should only be ordered if the court is ‘convinced’ that a plaintiff will be unable to state

6

a claim for relief.” Id. at 603. This often requires a magistrate to take a “preliminary peek” at a

7

pending dispositive motion. This “preliminary peek” is not intended to prejudge the outcome, but to

8

evaluate the propriety of a stay of discovery “with the goal of accomplishing the objectives of Rule

9

1.” Id. (citation omitted). That discovery may involve inconvenience and expense is not sufficient

10
11

to support a stay of discovery. Turner Broadcasting, 175 F.R.D. at 556.
The Court has preliminarily reviewed the pending motion to dismiss and finds that

12

Defendants’ have made the preliminary showing necessary to support the requested stay. The

13

amended complaint was filed on February 6, 2012. It contains several factual allegations regarding

14

claims that the Court previously dismissed. See Order (#75). It also contains several claims that do

15

not appear to comply with the Court’s prior dismissal order regarding Counts I and II. Finally, the

16

Court is convinced that many of the specifically alleged grievances will not survive the motion to

17

dismiss. At this stage in the proceedings, rather than speculate as to which of the grievances, if any,

18

will be allowed to proceed, the Court, in keeping with the mandate of Rule 1, will grant the

19

requested stay of discovery.

20

Based on the foregoing and good cause appearing therefore,

21

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (#84) is granted.

22
23

Discovery in this matter is stayed pending resolution of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (#81)
DATED this 22nd day of May, 2012.

24
25
26

______________________________________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

27
28
2