Lyons v. Cox et al

Filing 51

ORDER that 50 Motion to Stay Discovery is GRANTED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 8/12/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
9

PHILLIP J. LYONS,

10

Plaintiff(s),
vs.

11
JAMES G. COX, et al.,
12
Defendant(s).
13

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:14-cv-00046-RFB-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 50)

14

Pending before the Court is the unopposed motion to stay discovery filed by Defendants United

15

States and United States Marshal Christopher Hoye. Docket No. 50. In particular, Defendants seek a

16

stay of discovery pending resolution of their motion to dismiss. See Docket No. 41 (motion to dismiss).

17

The Court finds the matter properly resolved without oral argument. See Local Rule 78-2. For the

18

reasons discussed below, the motion to stay is hereby GRANTED.

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

claim for relief. See Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013).1

26
27
28

1

Conducting this preliminary peek puts the undersigned in an awkward position because the
assigned district judge who will decide the motion to dismiss may have a different view of its merits. See

1

Having reviewed the underlying motion to dismiss, the Court finds that these elements are

2

present in this case and GRANTS the motion to stay discovery. If the motion to dismiss is not granted

3

in full, the parties shall file a proposed discovery plan within seven days of the issuance of the order

4

resolving the motion to dismiss.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

DATED: August 12, 2015

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

Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 603. The undersigned’s “preliminary peek” at the merits of that motion is not
intended to prejudice its outcome. See id.
2