Randazza et al v. Cox et al

Filing 150

ORDER Denying 145 Plaintiffs' Motion to Vacate. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 7/18/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8
9
10
11

MARC J. RANDAZZA, et al.,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CRYSTAL COX, et al.,
)
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL
ORDER
(Mtn to Vacate - Dkt. #146)

12
13

This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs Marc J. Randazza’s, Jennifer Randazza, and Natalia

14

Randazza’s Motion to Vacate Order on Case Management Conference (Dkt. #145) filed June 20, 2013.

15

No response to the Motion was filed, and the time for filing one has now run.

16

BACKGROUND

17

This case arises out of the registration of no less than thirty-two internet domain names that

18

incorporate all or part of Plaintiffs’ personal names by Defendants Crystal Cox and Eliot Bernstein

19

(“Defendants”). Plaintiff Marc Randazza is the managing partner of Marc Randazza PA d/b/a

20

Randazza Legal Group. Plaintiff Jennifer Randazza is Marc Randazza’s wife, and Natalia Randazza is

21

the couple’s four-year-old daughter. Cox registered the domain names at issue in this case, some of

22

which were listed under proxy Bernstein’s name. Defendants registered the domain names through

23

godaddy.com and blogspot.com between December 10, 2011, and September 20, 2012.

24

On November 28, 2012, Plaintiffs filed the Complaint (Dkt. #1), alleging claims for: (1)

25

violation of individual cyberpiracy protections under 15 U.S.C. § 8131; (2) cybersquatting under 15

26

U.S.C. § 1125(d); (3) right of publicity under NRS 597.810; (4) common law right of publicity; (5)

27

common law right of intrusion upon seclusion; and (6) civil conspiracy. On January 11, 2013, the

28

district judge entered an Order (Dkt. #41) granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt.

1

#2) and temporarily enjoined Defendants from registering, operating, or maintaining any website or

2

domain name with Plaintiffs’ names or confusingly similar variation of their names. See Order (Dkt.

3

#41) at 12:2-16. Additionally, six of the domain names at issue, which are subject to a decision by the

4

World Intellectual Property Organization, were released to Marc Randazza’s full control by the

5

registrar. See Order (Dkt. #41) at 12:17-22. The twenty-six remaining domain names at issue were

6

ordered locked by the respective registrar and transferred to Plaintiffs. See Order (Dkt. #41) at 12:22-

7

13:11.

8
9

DISCUSSION
On April 26, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Motion (Dkt. #118) requesting the court enter a discovery

10

plan and scheduling order. The court entered a standard 180-day Scheduling Order (Dkt. #140).

11

Plaintiffs now request that the court vacate its Scheduling Order pending the court’s ruling on

12

Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment Against Defendant Eliot Bernstein (Dkt. #65) and Plaintiff’s

13

Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #75) because discovery is unnecessary. Both of Plaintiffs’

14

Motions were pending when Plaintiffs requested that the court enter the Scheduling Order. Plaintiffs do

15

not claim that they will not need discovery if their dispositive motions are not granted. Rather,

16

Plaintiffs are essentially asking that the court stay discovery in this case while dispositive motions are

17

pending.

18

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

19

when a potentially-dispositive motion is pending. See Skellerup Indus. Ltd v. City of L.A., 163 F.R.D.

20

598, 600-01 (C.D. Cal. 1995). In Skellerup, the court observed that if the Rules contemplated a motion

21

to dismiss would stay discovery, they would contain such a provision, and the court found that staying

22

discovery is directly at odds with the need for expeditious resolution of litigation. Id.; see also Turner

23

Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997); Twin City Fire Ins. v.

24

Employers of Wausau, 124 F.R.D. 652, 653 (D. Nev. 1989). A party seeking to stay discovery pending

25

a dispositive motion bears the heavy burden of making a strong showing why discovery should be

26

denied. See Turner, 175 F.R.D. at 556 (citing Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir.

27

1975)). A conclusory assertion that discovery may involve some inconvenience or expense does not

28

suffice. Id.; Twin City, 124 F.R.D. at 653. Plaintiffs state only that discovery is “unnecessary at this
2

1

time” while the motion for summary judgment is under submission.

2

Accordingly,

3

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate (Dkt. #145) is DENIED.

4

Dated this 18th day of July, 2013.

5
6
7
8

_________________________________________
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3