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

Filing 36

ORDER Granting 29 Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 2/4/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9
10

J.D.H., et al.,
Plaintiff(s),

11
12

vs.

13

LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN
POLICE DEPT., et al.,

14
Defendant(s).
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:13-cv-01300-APG-NJK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
STAY DISCOVERY
(Docket No. 29)

16

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

17

motion to dismiss. Docket No. 29; see also Docket No. 13 (motion to dismiss). Plaintiffs filed a

18

response in opposition and Defendants filed a reply. Docket Nos. 31, 32. The Court finds the motion

19

properly resolved without oral argument. See Local Rule 78-2. For the reasons discussed below, the

20

motion to stay discovery is hereby GRANTED.

21

Courts have 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). Instead, a party seeking to stay discovery carries the heavy

25

burden of making a strong showing why discovery should be denied. See, e.g., Turner Broadcasting

26

Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997). In deciding whether to grant a stay

27

of discovery, the Court is guided by the objectives of Rule 1 to ensure a “just, speedy, and inexpensive

28

determination of every action.” Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 602-03. Courts in this District have

1

formulated three requirements in determining whether to stay discovery pending resolution of a

2

potentially dispositive motion; motions to stay discovery may be granted when: (1) the pending motion

3

is potentially dispositive; (2) the potentially dispositive motion can be decided without additional

4

discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the potentially dispositive

5

motion and is convinced that the plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief. See, e.g., Kor Media

6

Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013).1

7

The parties essentially agree that the pending motion is potentially dispositive of the case and

8

that no discovery is needed in order to enable a decision on the motion. See, e.g., Docket No. 31 at 7;

9

Docket No. 32 at 2. The Court has also carefully reviewed the arguments and authorities presented in

10

conducting its “preliminary peek” of the motion to dismiss, and concludes that it appears sufficiently

11

likely that Plaintiffs will be unable to state a claim that a stay of discovery is appropriate. Accordingly,

12

the Court hereby GRANTS the motion to stay discovery. In the event that United States District Judge

13

denies the motion to dismiss in any part, the parties shall within 7 days thereof file a proposed discovery

14

plan.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

DATED: February 4, 2014

17
______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Conducting this preliminary peek puts a magistrate judge in an awkward position because the
district judge may evaluate the underlying motion differently. See Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 603. The
preliminary peek is not intended to prejudice the outcome of the motion to dismiss. Id.
2