Johnson v. Department of the Air Force, et al

Filing 21

ORDER Granting 20 Motion to Stay Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 1/15/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
TANYA JOHNSON,
8
Plaintiff(s),
9
10

vs.

11

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE NELLIS
AIR FORCE BASE, et al.,

12
Defendant(s).
13

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:14-cv-00631-RFB-NJK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
STAY DISCOVERY

(Docket No. 20)

14

Pending before the Court is the United States’ unopposed motion to stay discovery pending

15

resolution of its motion to dismiss. Docket No. 20; see also Docket No. 15 (motion to dismiss). The

16

Court finds this motion properly decided without oral argument. See Local Rule 78-2. For the reasons

17

discussed more fully below, the motion to stay discovery is hereby GRANTED.

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

...

26
1

27
28

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.

1

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

2

potentially case-dispositive as it raises the preliminary issue of the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction

3

and will completely dispose of the case if granted. Second, the motion to dismiss can be decided

4

without discovery. Third, the Court is convinced that Plaintiff will be unable to state a claim pursuant

5

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under Title VII.

6

Accordingly, the unopposed motion to stay discovery (Docket No. 20) is hereby GRANTED.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

DATED: January 15, 2015

9
10

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2