Bae v. Wynn

Filing 33

ORDER Granting 28 Defendant's Motion to Stay Discovery and 29 Motion to Quash Subpoenas. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 5/2/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
TOMMY KIM BAE,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
STEPHEN WYNN, et al.,
14
Defendant(s).
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:14-cv-0150-MMD-NJK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
STAY DISCOVERY AND TO QUASH
SUBPOENAS
(Docket Nos. 28, 29)

16

Pending before the Court are Defendants’ motions to stay discovery pending resolution of their

17

motion to dismiss and to quash subpoenas. Docket Nos. 28, 29 (filed on April 11, 2014); see also

18

Docket No. 7 (motion to dismiss). No response to the motions to stay and to quash was filed. The Court

19

finds these motions properly decided without oral argument. See Local Rule 78-2. For the reasons

20

discussed more fully below, the motions to stay discovery and to quash are hereby GRANTED.

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26
27
28

1

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

2

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

3

The Court finds each of these elements exists here. First, the pending motion to dismiss

4

challenges all claims brought by Plaintiff and is therefore potentially case-dispositive. Second, the

5

motion to dismiss can be decided without discovery. Third, the Court is convinced that Plaintiff will

6

be unable to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) under either RICO or FISA.2 Accordingly,

7

the motion to stay discovery is hereby GRANTED.

8
9

In light of the order above that discovery be stayed, the Court further GRANTS the motion to
quash subpoenas.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

DATED: May 2, 2014

12
______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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 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

The Court finds less persuasive Defendants’ jurisdictional arguments, which focus on the lack of
diversity jurisdiction in this case without acknowledging that Plaintiff purports to allege federal causes of
action such that federal question jurisdiction may exist. See Docket No. 4-5. Nonetheless, the Court
remains convinced that Plaintiff’s claims will be dismissed for failing to state a claim.
2