Barber v. Williams et al
Filing
58
ORDER granting 57 Motion to Stay. Discovery shall be stayed until the earlier of either March 16, 2015 or the criminal proceedings against Defendant Steve Williams is complete. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint status r eport on March 2, 2015 regarding the status of the criminal proceedings and necessity of the stay. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint proposed discovery plan and scheduling order within 10 days after the stay expires. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 10/28/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DKJ)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
LARRY BARBER,
7
8
9
10
11
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
STEVE WILLIAMS, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Steve Williams’ (“Defendant”) Motion to
12
13
Case No. 2:13-cv-00538-GMN-CWH
Continue Stay Discovery (doc. # 57), filed October 27, 2014.
DISCUSSION
14
15
Courts have broad discretionary power to control discovery including the decision to allow or
16
deny discovery. See e.g., Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988); Landis v. North
17
American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). This power to stay is “incidental to the power inherent in
18
every court to control the disposition of the causes of action on its docket with economy of time and
19
effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 254. In exercising its discretion,
20
the court must consider factors like, “wise judicial administration, giving regard to conservation of
21
judicial resources and comprehensive disposition of litigation.” Colorado River Water Conserv. Dist.
22
v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976).
23
An overly lenient standard for granting a motion to stay would result in unnecessary delay in
24
many cases. That discovery may involve inconvenience and expense is not sufficient to support a stay
25
of discovery. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev.
26
1997).1 Rather, a stay of discovery should only be ordered if the court is convinced that a plaintiff will
27
be unable to state a claim for relief. See Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 603; see also Wood v. McEwen, 644
28
1
As noted in Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., “[t]he fact that a non-frivolous motion is pending is simply not enough
to warrant a blanket stay of all discovery.” 278 F.R.D. 597, 603 (D. Nev. 2011).
1
F.2d 797, 801 (9th Cir. 1981) (per curiam). Ultimately, the party seeking the stay “carries the heavy
2
burden of making a ‘strong showing’ why discovery should be denied.” Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 601
3
(citing Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir.1975)). Moreover, a court should not
4
grant a stay absent a showing of hardship if “there is even a fair possibility that the stay... will work
5
damage to someone else.” Dependable Highway Express, Inc. v. Navigators Insurance Co., 498 F.3d
6
1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007). Therefore, the court must balance the competing interests affected by a
7
stay such as, the “hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward.”
8
Lockyer v. State of California, 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005).
9
The Court finds that Defendant has made the strong showing necessary to support the
10
continuation of the stay previously imposed until November 6, 2014. Defendant asserts that the
11
criminal investigation is still ongoing and a stay is necessary to protect his Fifth Amendment privilege
12
against self-incrimination. The Court finds that a stay of discovery is warranted to promote efficiency
13
and justice. Plaintiff is not prejudiced because he will have an opportunity to conduct discovery after
14
the stay. There are also no pending motions or trial date in this matter. Further, the delay of time is
15
not substantial given that there is a parallel criminal proceeding.
16
Based on the foregoing and good cause appearing therefore,
17
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Steve Williams’ Motion to Continue Stay (doc.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
# 57) is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that discovery shall be stayed until the earlier of either
March 16, 2015 or the criminal proceedings against Defendant Steve Williams is complete.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint status report on March 2, 2015
regarding the status of the criminal proceedings and necessity of the stay.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint proposed discovery plan and
scheduling order within 10 days after the stay expires.
DATED: October 28, 2014
______________________________________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?