Baker v. Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company

Filing 31

ORDER Granting in part and Denying in part 22 Motion to Stay Discovery. Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order due by 6/11/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 5/28/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10

JAMES C. BAKER,

11

Plaintiff(s),

12

vs.

13

HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS
INSURANCE COMPANY,

14
Defendant(s).
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:14-cv-0197-GMN-NJK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION TO
STAY
(Docket No. 22)

16

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to stay discovery. Docket No. 22. Plaintiff filed

17

a response in opposition and Defendant filed a reply. Docket Nos. 27, 29. The Court finds the motion

18

properly decided without oral argument. See Local Rule 78-2. For the reasons discussed more fully

19

below, Defendant’s motion to stay discovery is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

20

I.

STANDARDS

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

II.

ANALYSIS

4
5

Defendant’s motion to stay is premised on two separate motions, a motion for summary
judgment and a motion to dismiss. The Court addresses each in turn.

6

A.

Motion for Summary Judgment

7

Defendant argues that a stay of discovery should be imposed until its pending motion for

8

summary judgment can be resolved. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment argues that all of

9

Plaintiff’s claims fail because Plaintiff did not sufficiently cooperate with Defendant in investigating his

10

claim for underinsured motorist benefits. See Docket No. 19; see also Docket No. 30 (reply brief).

11

Plaintiff opposed the motion by arguing that, inter alia, the provision requiring cooperation is vague and

12

Plaintiff did sufficiently cooperate in the investigation. See Docket No. 28 at 9-18. Having reviewed

13

all of the briefing submitted on the motion for summary judgment, the Court concludes that it does not

14

provide a basis for staying discovery in this case.

15

Most significantly, the Court has taken a preliminary peek at the motion for summary judgment

16

and is not convinced that it will be granted. While Defendant has presented some substantial arguments

17

in favor of summary judgment, some authority supports Plaintiff’s position in opposition. Cf. Barrera

18

v. Western United Insurance Co., 2012 WL 359748, *5 (D. Nev. Feb. 2, 2012) (denying motion for

19

summary judgment despite failure to provide “full cooperation” in investigating claim because denying

20

claims outright on that basis would be “too harsh under the facts of this case”). It bears repeating that

21

the filing of a non-frivolous dispositive motion, standing alone, is simply not enough to warrant staying

22

discovery. See, e.g., Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 603. Instead, the Court must be “convinced” that the

23

dispositive motion will be granted. See, e.g., id. “That standard is not easily met.” Kor Media, 294

24

F.R.D. at 583. “[T]here must be no question in the court’s mind that the dispositive motion will prevail,

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 dispositive motion 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

1

and therefore, discovery is a waste of effort.” Id. (quoting Trazska v. Int’l Game Tech., 2011 WL

2

1233298, *3 (D. Nev. Mar. 29, 2011)) (emphasis in original). The Court requires this robust showing

3

that the dispositive motion will succeed because applying a lower standard would likely result in

4

unnecessary delay in many cases. Id. (quoting Trazska, 2011 WL 1233298, at *4). Because the Court

5

is not convinced that the motion for summary judgment will be granted, the Court finds unpersuasive

6

Defendant’s arguments that all discovery should be stayed pending resolution of that motion.

7

B.

Motion to Dismiss

8

Defendant also filed a motion to dismiss. Docket No. 15. As an initial matter, the Court notes

9

that this motion is not potentially case-dispositive because it challenges only the second, third and fourth

10

claims brought by Plaintiff. See id. Accordingly, the motion can only form the basis of staying

11

discovery related solely to those three claims and cannot form the basis of staying discovery as to

12

Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim. See, e.g., Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 602 (the pending motion must

13

be potentially case-dispositive “or at least dispositive on the issue on which discovery is sought”).

14

The Court finds that the motion to dismiss can be decided without additional discovery.

15

Lastly, the Court has taken a preliminary peek at the motion and is convinced that Plaintiff will

16

be unable to state a claim with respect to his second, third and fourth claims. Defendant argues that the

17

complaint fails to include sufficient factual allegations supporting these claims. See Docket No. 15; see

18

also Docket No. 18 (reply). For example, Defendant argues that the bad faith claim is supported by only

19

conclusory allegations. See, e.g., Docket No. 15 at 4-5. Plaintiff filed a response arguing that, inter

20

alia, he will not have access to facts supporting these claims until discovery commences and the facts

21

as pled are a sufficient short, plain statement to survive a motion to dismiss. See Docket No. 17 at 5-8.

22

Having reviewed all of the briefing on the motion to dismiss, the Court is convinced that Plaintiff will

23

be unable to state a claim with respect to his second, third and fourth claims.

24

Accordingly, the Court finds that a stay of discovery is appropriate pending resolution of the

25

motion to dismiss with respect to discovery directed only at the second, third and fourth claims.

26

III.

CONCLUSION

27

For the reasons discussed more fully above, Defendant’s motion to stay discovery is hereby

28

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The parties shall immediately commence discovery on
3

1

Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim, but discovery directly solely at the second, third, and forth claims

2

is hereby stayed. In accordance with the Court’s rulings above, the parties shall submit a joint proposed

3

discovery plan no later than June 11, 2014. In the event that the motion to dismiss is not granted in full,

4

the parties shall file an amended joint proposed discovery plan within 7 days of the order resolving the

5

motion to dismiss.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

DATED: May 28, 2014

8
9

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4