Dominguez-Hernandez et al v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department et al

Filing 27

ORDER Denying 25 Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery Without Prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 11/19/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
9
J.D.H., et al.,
10
Plaintiff(s),
11
vs.
12
13
14

LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN
POLICE DEPT., et al.,
Defendant(s).

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:13-cv-01300-APG-NJK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
STAY DISCOVERY WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
(Docket No. 25)

15
16

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

17

motion to dismiss. See Docket 25. The Court hereby DENIES the motion to stay without prejudice so

18

that Defendants can better address the applicable standards, discussed below. The Court hereby

19

ORDERS any renewed motion to stay be filed no later than November 25, 2013, with any opposition

20

due no later than December 3, 2013, and any reply due no later than December 6, 2013.

21

The case law in this District is well-established regarding motions to stay discovery pending

22

resolution of a motion to dismiss. The briefing should focus on the standards applied in this District,

23

which the Court recently summarized as follows:

24
25
26
27
28

“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket stays of
discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay,
Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). Instead, a party seeking to stay discovery
carries the heavy burden of making a strong showing why discovery should be denied.
See, e.g., Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D.
Nev. 1997). In deciding whether to grant a stay of discovery, the Court is guided by the
objectives of Rule 1 to ensure a “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every
action.” Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 602-03. Courts in this District have formulated three
requirements in determining whether to stay discovery pending resolution of a

1

3

potentially dispositive motion; motions to stay discovery may be granted when: (1) the
pending motion is potentially dispositive; (2) the potentially dispositive motion can be
decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a “preliminary peek”
at the merits of the potentially dispositive motion and is convinced that the plaintiff will
be unable to state a claim for relief. See id.

4

See Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, ___ F.R.D. ____, 2013 WL 5838679, *1 (D. Nev. Oct. 29, 2013).

2

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

DATED: November 19, 2013

7
8

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2