Morris v. American Reliable Insurance Company et al

Filing 25

ORDER Denying Without Prejudice 24 Stipulation to Stay Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 3/20/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DC)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
ROBERT MORRIS,
8
9
10
11
12

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
AMERICAN RELIABLE INS. CO., d/b/a
)
Assurant, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:14-cv-01998-GMN-CWH
ORDER

13

This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Stipulation and Proposed Order to Stay

14

Discovery (doc. # 24), filed March 19, 2015. The parties seek to stay discovery pending disposition

15

of the motion to dismiss in the instant case.

16

A court has broad discretionary power to control its docket, which extends to the issuance of

17

a stay. See e.g., Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). This power to stay is

18

“incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes of action on

19

its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Id. In exercising

20

its discretion, the court must consider factors such as, “wise judicial administration, giving regard to

21

conservation of judicial resources and comprehensive disposition of litigation.” Colorado River Water

22

Conserv. Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976). An overly lenient standard for granting a

23

motion to stay would result in unnecessary delay in many cases. Moreover, a court should not grant

24

a stay absent a showing of hardship if “there is even a fair possibility that the stay . . . will work

25

damage to someone else.” Dependable Highway Express, Inc. v. Navigators Insurance Co., 498 F.3d

26

1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007). Therefore, a court must balance the competing interests affected by a stay

27

such as, the “hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward.” Lockyer

28

v. State of California, 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005).

1

Here, the Court finds that a stay is not warranted. The parties have failed to file any points and

2

authority in support of their request for a stay as required by Local Rule 7-2. The Court also finds that

3

a stay is not warranted, as it would delay the efficient resolution of this case and unnecessarily disrupt

4

the Court’s schedule. Accordingly, the Court finds that a stay of discovery is not warranted at this

5

time.

6
7
8

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that parties’ Stipulation and Proposed Order to Stay
Discovery (doc. # 24) is denied without prejudice.
DATED: March 20, 2015

9
10

______________________________________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

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