Lasko v. American Board of Surgery, Inc. et al

Filing 116

ORDER Granting 113 Defendant's Motion to Stay Discovery and 114 Defendant's Joinder Pending Resolution of 36 , 43 & 44 Motions to Dismiss. In the event the Motions to Dismiss are not granted in full, the parties shall submit a joint proposed discovery plan and scheduling order within 7 days of the issuance of the order resolving the motions. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 06/09/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
9
KEITH ALAN LASKO,
10
Plaintiff,
11
vs.
12
13
14

AMERICAN BOARD OF SURGERY,
INC., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:13-cv-01893-JAD-NJK
Order Granting Joint Motion
to Stay Discovery [Docs. 113, 114]

15
16

Pending before the Court is a joint motion to stay discovery, filed by Defendants The American

17

Board of Surgery, Incorporated, Joseph B. Cofer, David M. Mahvi, Frank R. Lewis, Jr., Jo Buyske,

18

Mark A. Malangoni, Gabriel L.I. Bevilacqua, and Saul Ewing LLP. Docket No. 113. Defendants ask

19

this Court to stay discovery pending resolution of their two motions to dismiss. Id. Defendants filed

20

the instant motion on May 12, 2014. Id. On the same day, Defendant American Board of Internal

21

Medicine filed a joinder to the joint motion to stay discovery. Docket No. 114.

22

Local Rule 7-2(b) provides that “[u]nless otherwise ordered by the Court, points and authorities

23

in response [to a motion] shall be filed and served by an opposing party fourteen (14) days after service

24

of the motion.” Therefore, Plaintiff’s response was due no later than May 29, 2014. To date, no

25

response has been filed. Accordingly, the motion may be granted as unopposed. See Local Rule 7-2(d).

26

Additionally, the Court has reviewed the motion and finds that good cause exists to grant it.

27

“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket stays of discovery

28

when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601

1

(D. Nev. 2011). The case law in this District makes clear that requests to stay all discovery may be

2

granted when: (1) the pending motion is potentially dispositive; (2) the potentially dispositive motion

3

can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a “preliminary peek” at the

4

merits of the potentially dispositive motion and is convinced that Plaintiff will be unable to state a claim

5

for relief. Id. at 602–03.

6

The Court finds these factors are present here. First, Defendants’ motions to dismiss are

7

potentially case-dispositive as to all claims against them. Second, the motions to dismiss can be decided

8

without additional discovery. Third, the Court has taken a preliminary peek at the merits of the motions

9

to dismiss1 and believes that Plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief in this District against

10

Defendants.

11

Accordingly, Defendants’ joint motion to stay discovery pending resolution of their motions to

12

dismiss and joinder [Docs. 113 and 114] are hereby GRANTED. In the event the motions to dismiss

13

are not granted in full, the parties shall submit a joint proposed discovery plan and scheduling order to

14

the undersigned within 7 days of the issuance of the order resolving the motions.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

DATED June 9, 2014.

17
18
19

______________________________________
Jennifer A. Dorsey
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2