Bentley Industries, Inc. v. Longevity Network, LLC et al

Filing 98

ORDER Denying 80 Motion to Stay Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 4/30/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
BENTLEY INDUSTRIES, INC., et al.,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
LONGEVITY NETWORK, LLC, et al.,
14
Defendant(s).
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:12-cv-01067-JAD-NJK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
STAY DISCOVERY
(Docket No. 80)

16

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to stay discovery pending resolution of their

17

motion for summary judgment. Docket No. 80. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition, and Defendants

18

filed a reply. Docket Nos. 89, 91. The Court finds the motion to stay discovery properly decided

19

without oral argument. See Local Rule 78-2. For the reasons discussed more fully below, the motion

20

to stay discovery is hereby DENIED.

21

“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket stays of discovery

22

when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601

23

(D. Nev. 2011). The party seeking a stay carries the heavy burden of making a strong showing why

24

discovery should be denied. See, e.g., Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D.

25

554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997). The case law in this District makes clear that requests to stay all discovery

26

may be granted when: (1) the pending motion is potentially dispositive; (2) the potentially dispositive

27

motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a “preliminary peek”

28

1

at the merits of the potentially dispositive motion and is convinced that the plaintiff will be unable to

2

state a claim for relief. See Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013).

3

The Court finds that a stay of discovery is not appropriate in this case.1 Most significantly, the

4

Court has taken a preliminary peek at the motion for summary judgment and is not convinced that it will

5

be granted.2 It bears repeating that the filing of a non-frivolous dispositive motion, standing alone, is

6

simply not enough to warrant staying discovery. See, e.g., Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 603. Instead, the

7

Court must be “convinced” that the dispositive motion will be granted. See, e.g., id. “That standard is

8

not easily met.” Kor Media, 294 F.R.D. at 583. “[T]here must be no question in the court’s mind that

9

the dispositive motion will prevail, and therefore, discovery is a waste of effort.” Id. (quoting Trazska

10

v. Int’l Game Tech., 2011 WL 1233298, *3 (D. Nev. Mar. 29, 2011)) (emphasis in original). The Court

11

requires this robust showing that the dispositive motion will succeed because applying a lower standard

12

would likely result in unnecessary delay in many cases. Id. (quoting Trazska, 2011 WL 1233298, at *4).

13

That concern is heightened in a case like this one that has already been pending for nearly two years and

14

discovery has not been completed. Cf. Local Rules 26-1(d) and 26-1(e)(1) (providing presumption that

15

a reasonable discovery period is 180 days calculated from the first defendant answering or otherwise

16

appearing in the case).

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

1

The pending motion seeks a stay of all discovery. See, e.g., Docket No. 80 at 2, 8. But Defendants
acknowledge in their reply that the motion for summary judgment is not potentially case-dispositive. See
Docket No. 91 at 8. Defendants blame a typographical error for their earlier assertion that the “motion for
summary judgment will resolve the entire case as it seeks judgment on all of the claims that have been
asserted.” See Docket No. 80 at 8; Docket No. 91 at 8. As a result, the reply attempts to limit the scope of
the requested stay to only discovery related to the claims at issue in the motion for summary judgment. See
Docket No. 91 at 8. The Court generally does not consider arguments raised for the first time in reply. See,
e.g., Bazuaye v. I.N.S., 79 F.3d 118, 120 (9th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). Even construing the motion as
seeking a limited stay of discovery, however, it fails for the reasons discussed above.
2

Conducting this preliminary peek puts the undersigned in an awkward position because the assigned
district judge who will decide the motion to dismiss may have a different view of its merits. See Tradebay,
278 F.R.D. at 603. The undersigned’s “preliminary peek” at the merits of that motion is not intended to
prejudice its outcome. See id.
2

1

The Court has carefully reviewed the arguments presented in the motion for summary judgment

2

and subsequent briefing. Docket Nos. 78, 92, 96. The Court is simply not convinced that the motion

3

for summary judgment will be granted, such that continuing discovery will be a waste of effort.

4

Accordingly, the motion to stay discovery is hereby DENIED.3

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

DATED: April 30, 2014

7
______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

Plaintiff seeks an order from the Court that Defendants’ discovery responses were improper and,
as a result, all objections have been waived. See Docket No. 89 at 17-18. That issue is not properly before
the Court, so the Court expresses no opinion on it.
3