Williams v. Gold Coast Hotel and Casino et al

Filing 63

ORDER Granting 21 Defendant United States' Motion to Stay Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order. The discovery stay is limited to Defendant United States. All other parties shall proceed with discovery. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 62 Defendant United States' Motion to Request Special Scheduling Conference is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 5/8/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
SOFIA A. WILLIAMS,

11
12
13
14
15

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
GOLD COAST HOTEL AND CASINO, et al.,
)
)
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:11-cv-02112-KJD-CWH
ORDER

16
This matter is before the Court on Defendant United States’ Motion to Stay Discovery
17
Plan/Scheduling Order (#21), filed March 2, 2012, and Defendant United States’ Motion to Request a
18
Special Scheduling Conference (#62), filed May 4, 2012. By way of the motion, the United States
19
requests that the Court stay discovery until the Court has had an opportunity to issue a ruling on the
20
pending motion to dismiss (#20).
21
The Federal Rules do not provide for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a
22
potentially dispositive motion is pending. Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597 (D. Nev. 2011)
23
(citation omitted). As a general matter, courts have broad discretionary power to control discovery.
24
See e.g., Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). United States Magistrate Judge
25
Peggy Leen recently undertook a detailed and thorough review of the state of the law as pertains to
26
staying discovery in the Tradebay case. In light of the directive in Rule 1 to construe the Federal Rules
27
of Civil Procedure in a manner to “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every
28
action,” Judge Leen confirmed that the preferred approach is that set forth previously in Twin City Fire

1

Insurance v. Employers of Wausau, 124 F.R.D. 652 (D. Nev. 1989) and Turner Broadcasting System,

2

Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554 (D. Nev. 1997). As Twin City and Turner Broadcasting state, a

3

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

4

unless jurisdiction, venue, or immunity are preliminary issues. See Turner Broadcasting, 175 F.R.D. at

5

554, 555-6 (quoting Twin City, 124 F.R.D. at 652).

6

“It is well-established that a party seeking a stay of discovery carries the heavy burden of

7

making a strong showing why discovery should be denied.” Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 601 (citing

8

Turner Broadcasting, 175 F.R.D. at 556. Dispositive motions are a frequent part of federal practice.

9

An overly lenient standard for granting requests to stay due to pending dispositive motions would result

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

evaluate the propriety of a stay of discovery “with the goal of accomplishing the objectives of Rule 1.”

15

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

16

support a stay of discovery. Turner Broadcasting, 175 F.R.D. at 556.1

17

The Court has preliminarily reviewed the pending motion to dismiss and finds that Defendant

18

United States has made the necessary showing to support its requested stay. The complaint in this

19

matter was filed on December 29, 2011. (#1). It is difficult to determine from the face of the complaint

20

exactly what claims Plaintiff is attempting to bring, what facts might support those claims, and to which

21

Defendants the claims might apply. It is apparent, however, that there are several preliminary issues

22

which must be addressed, particularly regarding Defendant United States. In particular, the United

23

States challenges both subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction, claims that there has been

24

insufficient process and service of process, and claims that it is immune from section 1983 claims. See

25
26
27
28

1

As noted in Tradebay, “[t]he explosion of Rule 12(b)(6) motions in the wake of Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), has made the speedy determinations of cases increasingly
more difficult.” Thus, “[t]he fact that a non-frivolous motion is pending is simply not enough to warrant a blanket stay of all
discovery.” Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 603.

2

1

e.g. Gerritsen v. Consulado General De Mexico, 989 F.2d 340, 343 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that a

2

federal agency is immune from a section 1983 suit absent revocation of that immunity by Congress).

3

Accordingly,

4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant United States’ Motion to Stay Discovery

5

Plan/Scheduling Order (#21) is granted. The discovery stay is limited to Defendant United States. All

6

other parties shall proceed with discovery.

7
8

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant United States’ Motion to Request a Special
Scheduling Conference (#62) is denied as moot.

9
10
11

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

12

Dated: May 8, 2012

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3