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