Aguirre v. Mundo, LLC et. al.
Filing
23
ORDER Denying as moot 16 Defendants' Motion for Protective Order Staying Discovery and Denying 17 Defendants' Amended Motion for Protective Order Staying Discovery. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall submit a joint proposed discovery plan no later than 1/6/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 12/30/2013. (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
IRMA AGUIRRE,
10
Plaintiff(s),
11
vs.
12
MUNDO, LLC, et al.,
13
Defendant(s).
14
15
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 2:13-cv-01957-LDG-NJK
ORDER DENYING STAY
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Amended Motion for Protective Order Staying
16
Discovery Until the Court Rules on Defendants’ Pending Motion to Dismiss. See Docket 17; see
17
also Docket No. 5 (“motion to dismiss”). Defendants’ amended motion supersedes their original
18
motion, Docket No. 16, which is hereby DENIED as moot. Additionally, for the reasons discussed
19
below, Defendants’ amended motion, Docket No. 17, is DENIED.
20
The pendency of a motion to dismiss alone does not in itself stay discovery deadlines. See,
21
e.g., Ministerio Roca Solida v. U.S. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, 288 F.R.D. 500, 506 (D. Nev. 2013)
22
(“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket stays of discovery
23
when a potentially dispositive motion is pending”). “It is well-established that a party seeking a stay
24
of discovery carries the heavy burden of making a strong showing why discovery should be stayed.”
25
Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). To determine whether this
26
requirement is met, the Court employs a two-part test: (1) the pending motion must be potentially
27
dispositive of the entire case or at least dispositive of the issue on which discovery is sought; and (2)
28
the court must determine whether the pending potentially dispositive motion can be decided without
1
additional discovery. Ministerio, 288 F.R.D. at 506; citing e.g., Mlejnecky, 2011 WL 489743, at *6.
2
Therefore, as a threshold matter, the movant must establish that the “pending motion must be
3
potentially dispositive of the entire case or at least dispositive of the issue on which discovery is
4
sought.” Tradebay, 278 F.R.D at 601. Once a party has met the threshold requirement, the court
5
must consider whether the pending potentially dispositive motion can be decided without additional
6
discovery. Ministerio Roca Solida v. U.S. Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, 288 F.R.D. 500 (D. Nev. 2013);
7
citing Mlejnecky v. Olympus Imaging America, Inc., 2011 WL 489743, at *6 (E.D.Cal. Feb. 7,
8
2011). To make this determination, “the court deciding the motion to stay must take a ‘preliminary
9
peek’ at the merits of the pending dispositive motion to assess whether a stay is warranted.”1 Id. The
10
Court must decide “whether it is more just to speed the parties along in discovery and other
11
proceedings while a dispositive motion is pending, or whether it is more just to delay or limit
12
discovery and other proceedings to accomplish the inexpensive determination of the case.” Id.
13
Here, Defendants seek to dismiss the entire Complaint on the following grounds: (1) Plaintiff
14
has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies by failing to file a charge with the EEOC; (2) she
15
is not “employee” under Title VII; and (3) she has not sufficiently pled her claims, including her
16
claim for breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to Defendants’ motion
17
asserting that, although the motion to dismiss is potentially dispositive, it is unlikely to succeed in its
18
entirely and, additionally, there are still questions of fact that must be resolved. Specifically, Plaintiff
19
argues that the dispute concerning whether Plaintiff was an employee is a very fact-intensive inquiry
20
and many of the relevant facts are still in dispute. Finally, Plaintiff asserts that even if the Court
21
finds that she has not sufficiently pled her claims, leave to amend is liberally granted and, therefore,
22
23
1
24
25
26
27
28
As the Court in Ministerio Roca Solida stated, “taking a ‘preliminary peek’ and evaluating a
pending dispositive motion puts a magistrate judge in an awkward position. The district judge will
decide the dispositive motion and may have a different view of the merits of the underlying motion.
Thus, this court's ‘preliminary peek’ at the merits of the underlying motion is not intended to prejudge its
outcome. Rather, this court's role is to evaluate the propriety of an order staying or limiting discovery
with the goal of accomplishing the objectives of Rule 1.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 directs that
the Rules shall “be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination
of every action.”
2
1
discovery should proceed.
2
Having reviewed the parties’ respective arguments as well as the pending motion to dismiss,
3
the Court finds that, although the pending motion to dismiss is potentially dispositive and it could,
4
hypothetically, be decided without additional discovery, it is unlikely that it will be granted in its
5
entirely without leave to amend. The Court has taken a preliminary peek at the merits of the pending
6
motion and finds that it is more just to move this case forward with discovery while the dispositive
7
motion is pending than to delay the litigation for an unspecified amount of time.
8
Accordingly,
9
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order Staying Discovery
10
Until the Court Rules on Defendants’ Pending Motion to Dismiss, Docket No. 16, is DENIED as
11
moot.
12
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Amended Motion for Protective Order
13
Staying Discovery Until the Court Rules on Defendants’ Pending Motion to Dismiss, Docket No. 17,
14
is DENIED.
15
16
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall submit a joint proposed discovery plan no
later than January 6, 2014.
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
DATED: December 30, 2013.
19
20
______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?