Konami Gaming Inc. v. PTT, LLC

Filing 110

ORDER Denying Defendant's 103 Motion to Stay. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 02/10/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - NEV)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 KONAMI GAMING, INC., 9 10 11 12 13 ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) HIGH 5 GAMES, LLC, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) Case No. 2:14-cv-01483-RFB-NJK ORDER (Docket No. 103) 14 15 Pending before the Court is a motion to stay discovery pending resolution of Defendant’s 16 motion for summary jugment. See Docket No. 103; see also Docket No. 92 (motion for summary 17 judgment). Plaintiff filed a response in opposition, and Defendant filed a reply. Docket Nos. 105, 18 109. The Court finds the motions properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. For 19 the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to stay discovery. Docket No. 20 103. 21 The Court has broad discretionary power to control discovery. See, e.g., Little v. City of 22 Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide 23 for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” 24 Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). The party seeking a stay carries 25 the heavy burden of making a strong showing why discovery should be denied. See, e.g., Turner 26 Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997). The case law in this 27 District makes clear that requests to stay all discovery may be granted when: (1) the pending motion 28 is potentially dispositive; (2) the potentially dispositive motion can be decided without additional 1 discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the potentially 2 dispositive motion and is convinced that the plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief. See 3 Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013). 4 Applying the relevant standards, the Court has taken a preliminary peek at the motion for 5 summary judgment and is not convinced that it will be granted.1 The filing of a non-frivolous 6 dispositive motion, standing alone, does not warrant staying discovery. See, e.g., Tradebay, 278 7 F.R.D. at 603. Instead, the Court must be “convinced” that the dispositive motion will be granted. 8 See, e.g., id. “That standard is not easily met.” Kor Media, 294 F.R.D. at 583. “[T]here must be 9 no question in the court’s mind that the dispositive motion will prevail, and therefore, discovery is 10 a waste of effort.” Id. (quoting Trazska v. Int’l Game Tech., 2011 WL 1233298, *3 (D. Nev. Mar. 11 29, 2011)) (emphasis in original). The Court requires this robust showing that the dispositive motion 12 will succeed because applying a lower standard would likely result in unnecessary delay in many 13 cases. Id. (quoting Trazska, 2011 WL 1233298, at *4). 14 Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to stay, Docket No. 103, is hereby DENIED. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 DATED: February 10, 2017 17 ______________________________________ ___________________________ _ __ __ ___ NANCY J. KOPPE ANCY KOPPE OPP United States Magis nited States Ma is ates Magistrate Judge e istrate is 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 27 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. 28 2 26

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?