Kwasniewski et al v. sanofi-aventis U.S., LLC et al

Filing 165

ORDER Denying 159 Motion to Stay. The parties shall file a joint proposed discovery plan, no later than June 24, 2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 6/17/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
8

JENNIFER KWASNIEWSKI, et al.,

9

Plaintiff(s),

10

vs.

11

SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S., LLC,

12

Defendant(s).

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:12-cv-00515-GMN-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 159)

13
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ renewed motion to stay discovery. Docket No. 159.
14

Defendant filed a notice of non-opposition. Docket No. 160.1 The Court finds the matter properly

15
resolved without oral argument. See Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiffs’
16
renewed motion to stay is DENIED.
17
I.

STANDARD

18
The Court has broad discretionary power to control discovery. See, e.g., Little v. City of Seattle,
19
863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). This
20
discretionary power extends to the issuance of a stay of discovery. Alaska Cargo Transp., Inc. v. Alaska
21
R.R., 5 F.3d 378, 383 (9th Cir. 1993).
22
“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket stays of discovery
23
when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601
24
(D. Nev. 2011) (stating that a stay of discovery is directly at odds with the need for expeditious
25
26
27
28

1

Although Defendant does not oppose Plaintiffs’ motion, the Court must still determine whether
Plaintiffs have properly established that discovery should be stayed pending the resolution of Defendant’s
motion to dismiss.

1

resolution of litigation). Nor does Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) “‘erect an automatic,

2

blanket prohibition on any and all discovery before . . . [a] complaint survives a motion to dismiss.’”

3

In re Flash Memory Antitrust Litig., 2008 WL 62278, *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2008) (quoting In re

4

Graphics Processing Units Antitrust Litig., 2007 WL 2127577 (N.D. Cal. July 24, 2007)). Thus, the

5

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

6

discovery.” Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997) (quotation

7

omitted).

8

Rather, in deciding whether to grant a stay of discovery, the Court is guided by the objectives

9

of Rule 1 to ensure a “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.”2 Kor Media Grp.,

10

LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013) (quoting Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 602-03). “With

11

Rule 1 as its prime directive, this court must decide whether it is more just to speed the parties along

12

in discovery and other proceedings while a dispositive motion is pending, or whether it is more just to

13

delay or limit discovery and other proceedings to accomplish the inexpensive determination of the case.”

14

Ministerio Roca Solida v. U.S. Dep’t of Fish & Wildlife, 288 F.R.D. 500, 504 (D. Nev. 2013). Where

15

a pending dispositive motion challenges fewer than all of the disputed claims, prohibiting discovery

16

causes unwarranted delay. Id. Accordingly, discovery may be stayed on the basis of a pending

17

dispositive motion only when it is wholly dispositive. Id. at 506.

18

In this case, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is not wholly dispositive. Rather, it only “requests

19

the Court to dismiss Counts 1 and 3, in part, and Count 4, in its entirety.” Docket No. 150 at 2.

20

Delaying discovery would therefore result in unwarranted delay and a stay of discovery would be

21

inconsistent with the directives of Rule 1. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ renewed motion to stay discovery

22

is DENIED. The parties shall file a joint proposed discovery plan, no later than June 24, 2016.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

DATED: June 17, 2016
______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

25
26
27
28

2

Unless otherwise specified, references to “Rules” refer to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2