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)

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