Barber v. Williams et al

Filing 41

ORDER Granting 35 Defendant's Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Outcome of Criminal Investigation. Discovery shall be STAYED until the earlier of 9/2/2014 or the criminal proceedings against Defendant Steve Williams are complete. IT IS FUR THER ORDERED that the parties shall file joint status reports on 5/13/2014 and on 8/1/2014. The parties shall file a joint proposed Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order within 10 days after the stay expires or no later than 9/12/2014. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 40 Plaintiff's Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 03/14/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11

LARRY BARBER,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
STEVE WILLIAMS, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:13-cv-00538-GMN-CWH
ORDER

12
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Steve Williams’ (“Defendant”) Motion to Stay
13
Discovery Pending Outcome of Criminal Investigation (#35), filed on March 4, 2014. The Court
14
also considered Plaintiff’s Response (#39), filed on March 13, 2014. In addition, this matter is
15
before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Fourth Amended Complaint (#40), filed on
16
March 13, 2014. Defendant seeks a stay of discovery because a related criminal case proceeding is
17
ongoing, trial is not scheduled until July 28, 2014, and the Clark County District Attorney is
18
reviewing the investigation. Plaintiff does not oppose a stay of discovery and requests that the stay
19
be imposed until September 1, 2014.
20
DISCUSSION
21
Courts have broad discretionary power to control discovery including the decision to allow
22
or deny discovery. See e.g., Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988); Landis v.
23
North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). This power to stay is “incidental to the power
24
inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes of action on its docket with economy
25
of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Id. In exercising its discretion, the court
26
must consider factors like, “wise judicial administration, giving regard to conservation of judicial
27
resources and comprehensive disposition of litigation.” Colorado River Water Conserv. Dist. v.
28
United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976).

1

An overly lenient standard for granting a motion to stay would result in unnecessary delay

2

in many cases. That discovery may involve inconvenience and expense is not sufficient to support

3

a stay of discovery. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D.

4

Nev. 1997).1 Rather, a stay of discovery should only be ordered if the court is convinced that a

5

plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief. See Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597,

6

603 (D. Nev. 2011); see also Wood v. McEwen, 644 F.2d 797, 801 (9th Cir. 1981) (per curiam).

7

Ultimately, the party seeking the stay “carries the heavy burden of making a ‘strong showing’ why

8

discovery should be denied.” Id. (citing Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th

9

Cir.1975)). Moreover, a court should not grant a stay absent a showing of hardship if “there is even

10

a fair possibility that the stay . . . will work damage to someone else.” Dependable Highway

11

Express, Inc. v. Navigators Insurance Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007). Therefore, the

12

court must balance the competing interests affected by a stay such as, the “hardship or inequity

13

which a party may suffer in being required to go forward.” Lockyer v. State of California, 398 F.3d

14

1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005).

15

The Court finds that the Defendant has made the strong showing necessary to support the

16

requested stay. Defendant contends that a stay is necessary to protect his 5th Amendment privilege

17

against self-incrimination, review of the investigation by the DA, and allow for the completion of

18

the related criminal proceeding. More specifically, Defendant asserts that the civil and criminal

19

matters are almost identical as to subject matter and proceeding with discovery in this case would

20

force witnesses to forgo their Fifth Amendment rights. Plaintiff does not oppose a stay as long as

21

he is provided with the opportunity to conduct discovery at a later date. In fact, Plaintiff requests

22

that the stay be imposed only until September 1, 2014. This proposed date is a federal holiday, so

23

the Court will modify it to September 2, 2014. However, the Court finds that a stay of discovery is

24

warranted to promote efficiency and justice. Plaintiff is not prejudiced because he does not oppose

25

Defendant’s request for a stay. Additionally, there are no pending motions or trial date in this

26
27
1

As noted in Tradebay, “[t]he fact that a non-frivolous motion is pending is simply not enough to warrant a blanket

28 stay of all discovery.” 278 F.R.D. at 603.

2

1

matter. Further, the delay of time is not substantial given that there is a parallel criminal

2

proceeding. Finally, the Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file his fourth amended complaint. In

3

light of the stay, the Court will deny this motion without prejudice. Plaintiff may renew his motion

4

once discovery commences after the stay is lifted. Additionally, the Court will require the parties

5

to submit a new joint proposed discovery plan and scheduling order after the stay is lifted.

6

Based on the foregoing and good cause appearing therefore,

7

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Steve Williams’ Motion to Stay Discovery

8

Pending Outcome of Criminal Investigation (#35) is granted.

9
10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that discovery shall be stayed until the earlier of September
2, 2014 or the criminal proceedings against Defendant Steve Williams are complete.

11

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file joint status reports on May 13,

12

2014 and on August 1, 2014 regarding the status of the criminal proceedings and necessity of the

13

stay.

14

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint proposed discovery plan

15

and scheduling order within 10 days after the stay expires or no later than September 12, 2014.

16

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Fourth Amended

17

Complaint (#40) is denied without prejudice given that a stay has been imposed and may be

18

renewed once the stay is lifted.

19

DATED this 14th day of March, 2014.

20
21

______________________________________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3