Foley v. Arostegui et al

Filing 37

ORDER Granting 33 Motion to Stay Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 4/15/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DC)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
MICHAEL FOLEY,

11

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

12

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

13

motion to dismiss. Docket No. 33. Plaintiff filed a response. Docket No. 35. Defendants did not

14

file a reply. See Docket. The Court finds this motion appropriately resolved without oral argument.

15

See Local Rule 78-2. For the reasons discussed below, the motion to stay discovery is GRANTED

16

and discovery in this matter shall be stayed pending resolution of Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

17

The Court has broad discretionary power to control discovery. See, e.g., Little v. City of

18

Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide

19

for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.”

20

Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). In determining whether a stay

21

is appropriate, the Court considers the goals of Rule 1 to “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive”

22

determination of all cases. Id., at 602-03.1 The case law in this District makes clear that requests

23

to stay all discovery may be granted when: (1) the pending motion is potentially dispositive; (2) the

24

potentially dispositive motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court has

25

taken a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the potentially dispositive motion and is convinced that

26

the plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief. See Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294

7
Plaintiff(s),
8
vs.
9
LOREA AROSTEGUI, et al.,
10
Defendant(s).

Case No. 2:14-cv-00094-RFB-NJK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
STAY
(Docket No. 33)

27
28
1

Unless otherwise noted, references to “Rules” refer to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

1

F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013).2 Common situations warranting a stay of discovery pending a

2

ruling on a dispositive motion occur when jurisdiction, venue, or immunity are preliminary issues.

3

Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 555–56 (D. Nev.1997).

4

“Courts have held that “threshold immunity question[s]” should be decided before the parties engage

5

in discovery.” Ministerio Roca Solida v. U.S. Dep’t of Fish & Wildlife, 288 F.R.D. 500, 506-507 (D.

6

Nev. 2013) (quoting Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232, 111 S. Ct. 1789, 1793 (1991).

7

The Court finds that Defendants have made the strong showing necessary to support a stay

8

of discovery pending resolution of their motion to dismiss. First, the pending motion to dismiss is

9

potentially case-dispositive as it challenges all pending claims and raises the preliminary issue of

10

Defendants’ immunity. Second, the motion to dismiss can be decided without discovery. Third, the

11

Court is convinced that Plaintiff will be unable to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).3

12

Additionally, the Court notes that Plaintiff stated that he “would be willing to stipulate to suspending

13

the commencement of depositions pending the Court’s ruling on the outstanding dispositive motion.”

14

Docket No. 35, at 1-2.

15

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to stay discovery (Docket No. 33) is hereby GRANTED.

16

In the event that the motion to dismiss is not granted in full, the parties shall file a joint proposed

17

discovery plan within 14 days of the issuance of the order resolving the motion to dismiss.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

DATED: April 15, 2015

20
21
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
26

2

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 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.
3

27
28

When the Court screens the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the Court does not
have the benefit of the adversarial process. See Buchheit v. Green, 705 F.3d 1157, 1161 (10th Cir.
2012).
-2-