Werbicky et al v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC

Filing 28

ORDER re 25 Proposed Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order. Discovery in this matter is STAYED pending the ruling on 6 MOTION to Dismiss. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 11/16/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

ROBERT E. WERBICKY, et al.,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
GREEN TREE SERVICES, LLC, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:12-cv-01567-GMN-GWF
ORDER
Joint Stipulated Discovery Plan (#25)

This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ proposed Discovery Plan (#25), filed on

15

November 13, 2012. Currently pending before the District Court are Defendants’ Motion to

16

Dismiss (#6), filed on September 26, 2012, and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

17

(#14), filed on October 22, 2012. Plaintiffs propose that the parties submit their initial disclosures

18

by November 27, 2012, and that the discovery cutoff be May 13, 2013 under Local Rule 26-1(e)(1),

19

180 (one hundred eighty) days after the parties’ Rule 26(f) Conference. Defendants propose the

20

parties serve their initial disclosures no later than 14 (fourteen) days after the District Court enters

21

orders on the pending dispositive motions (#6, #14). The Court construes Defendants’ proposal as

22

a request to stay discovery pending decision on the dispositive motions.

23

A party seeking a stay of discovery carries the “heavy burden” of making a “strong

24

showing” why discovery should be stayed. Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th

25

Cir. 1975). The pendency of dispositive motions may justify a stay of discovery in a matter. See

26

Trzaska v. Int’l Game Technology, 2011 WL 1233298 at *3 (D. Nev 2011). In such cases, courts

27

take a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the dispositive motion “to see if on its face there appears

28

to be an immediate and clear possibility that it will be granted.” Id.; see also Ameritel Inns v. Mofat

1

Bros. Plastering, 2007 WL 1792323 (D. Idaho 2007). Where the pending dispositive motion is a

2

motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a court may stay discovery if “it is convinced that the

3

plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief.” Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. V. Tracinda

4

Corp., 175 F.R.d. 554, 555-56 (D. Nev. 1997).

5

Defendants’ pending dispositive Motion to Dismiss (#6) is pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The

6

Court has taken a “preliminary peek” at the motion, and is convinced there is a clear possibility that

7

it will be granted. Therefore, the Court finds a stay of discovery in this matter is appropriate

8

pending decision on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly,

9
10
11

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that discovery in this matter shall be stayed pending the
District Court’s order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (#6).
DATED this 16th day of November, 2012.

12
13
14

______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2