Beckman v. Match.com, LLC

Filing 42

ORDER Granting 39 Motion to Stay re Discovery. IT IS ORDERED that the Court STAYS discovery pending resolution of the motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. In the event the order resolving that motion does not result in the disposition o f this case, the parties shall file within 14 days thereof a joint status report regarding whether discovery should proceed and, if so, a schedule for discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 1/30/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
MARY KAY BECKMAN,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
MATCH.COM, LLC,
14
Defendant(s).
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:13-cv-00097-JCM-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 39)

16

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

17

to dismiss or for summary judgment. Docket No. 39; see also Docket No. 34 (motion to dismiss or for

18

summary judgment). Plaintiff has filed a response in opposition. Docket No. 40. Defendant filed a

19

reply. Docket No. 41. The Court finds the motion properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule

20

78-1. For the reasons discussed below, the motion to stay is hereby GRANTED.

21

The Court has broad discretionary power to control discovery. See, e.g., Little v. City of Seattle,

22

863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic

23

or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay,

24

Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). The party seeking a stay carries the heavy burden of making

25

a strong showing why discovery should be denied. See, e.g., Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda

26

Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997). The case law in this District makes clear that requests to

27

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

28

potentially dispositive motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken

1

a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the potentially dispositive motion and is convinced that the plaintiff

2

will be unable to state a claim for relief. Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D.

3

Nev. 2013).1

4

The Court finds these standards met in this case. Defendant’s motion to dismiss or for summary

5

judgment challenges the sole remaining claim alleged by Plaintiff, and is therefore potentially case-

6

dispositive. Moreover, Plaintiff acknowledges that her claim can succeed only with a showing of a

7

“special relationship,” Docket No. 40 at 10, and Judge Mahan has already ruled in this case that no such

8

relationship existed, Docket No. 18 at 13 (dismissing tort claims with prejudice on that basis).

9

Accordingly, the Court STAYS discovery pending resolution of the motion to dismiss or for summary

10

judgment. In the event the order resolving that motion does not result in the disposition of this case, the

11

parties shall file within 14 days thereof a joint status report regarding whether discovery should proceed

12

and, if so, a schedule for discovery.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

DATED: January 30, 2017

15

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

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

1

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