Ruhlmann et al v. Rudolfsky et al

Filing 30

ORDER Granting 27 Motion to Stay. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 10/21/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

MAX RUHLMANN, et al.,

)
)
Plaintiff(s),
)
)
vs.
)
)
GLENN RUDOLFSKY, et al.,
)
)
)
Defendant(s).
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:14-cv-0879-RFB-NJK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY
(Docket No. 27)

16

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to stay discovery. Docket No. 27. Plaintiffs filed

17

a response in opposition and Defendants filed a reply. Docket Nos. 28, 29. The Court finds this motion

18

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

19

the motion to stay is hereby GRANTED.

20

Courts have broad discretionary power to control discovery. See, e.g., Little v. City of Seattle, 863

21

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

22

blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc.,

23

278 F.R.D. 597, 600 (D. Nev. 2011). In deciding whether to grant a stay of discovery, the Court is guided

24

by the objectives of Rule 1 to ensure a “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.” Id.

25

at 602-03. Courts in this District have formulated three requirements in determining whether to stay

26

discovery pending resolution of a potentially dispositive motion. Motions to stay discovery may be granted

27

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

28

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

1

potentially dispositive motion to evaluate the likelihood of dismissal. See id. A party seeking to stay

2

discovery pending resolution of a potentially dispositive motion bears the burden of establishing that

3

discovery should be stayed. See Holiday Sys., Int’l of Nev. v. Vivarelli, Scharwz, and Assocs., 2012 U.S.

4

Dist. Lexis 125542, *5 (D. Nev. Sept. 5, 2012).

5

Generally speaking, “a pending motion challenging [personal] jurisdiction strongly favors a stay,

6

or at a minimum, limitations on discovery until the question of jurisdiction is resolved.” AMC Fabrication,

7

Inc. v. KRD Trucking West, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist Lexis 146270, *5-6 (D. Nev. Oct. 10, 2012); see also Kabo

8

Tool Co. v. Porauto Indus. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 53570, *2 (D. Nev. Apr. 15, 2013) (noting more

9

lenient standard for stay pending personal jurisdiction challenge since that is a “critical preliminary

10

question”). In determining whether a stay is appropriate, the Court is mindful that “how the undersigned

11

sees the jurisdictional picture may be very different from how the assigned district judge will see the

12

jurisdictional picture.” AMC Fabrication, 2012 U.S. Dist Lexis 146270 at *10. Nonetheless, the filing of

13

a motion challenging personal jurisdiction does not mandate a stay of discovery and the Court retains

14

discretion to require discovery to go forward. See id. at *5 (citing Holiday Systems, 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis

15

125542).

16

Applying these standards, the Court finds that sufficient cause exists to GRANT the motion to stay.

17

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

18

discovery plan and scheduling order within seven days of the issuance of the order resolving the motion

19

to dismiss.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

DATED: October 21, 2014

22
23

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

24
25
26
27
28
2