Byrd v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.

Filing 51

ORDER Granting 49 Motion to Stay Discovery. A Status Conference is set for 8/15/2016 10:00 AM in LV Courtroom 3D before Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 3/8/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4
5

GARY DARNELL BYRD, and GEORGETTE G.
BYRD,

6
7
8

2:14-cv-02010-RFB-VCF
ORDER

Plaintiffs,
vs.
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, et al.,
Defendants.

9

Before the court is Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Ruling on Defendants' Motion
10

to Dismiss (#49). Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. filed a Joinder to Defendants' Motion to Stay. (#50).
11

Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition to the Motion to Stay Discovery. The time to oppose has
12

passed.
13

LEGAL STANDARD
14

When evaluating a motion to stay discovery while a dispositive motion is pending, the court
15

initially considers the goal of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1. The guiding premise of the Rules is that
16

the Rules “should be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination
17

of every action.” FED. R. CIV. P. 1. It needs no citation of authority to recognize that discovery is
18

expensive. The Supreme Court has long mandated that trial courts should resolve civil matters fairly but
19

without undue cost. Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 306 (1962). This directive is echoed
20

by Rule 26, which instructs the court to balance the expense of discovery against its likely benefit. See
21

FED.R.CIV.P. 26(B)(2)(iii).
22

Consistent with the Supreme Court’s mandate that trial courts should balance fairness and cost,
23

the Rules do not provide for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion
24

is pending. Skellerup Indus. Ltd. v. City of Los Angeles, 163 F.R.D. 598, 600–01 (C.D. Cal. 1995).
25

1

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1), “[t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order to

2

protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.”

3

Whether to grant a stay is within the discretion of the court. Munoz–Santana v. U.S. I.N.S., 742 F.2d 561,

4

562 (9th Cir. 1984). The party seeking the protective order, however, has the burden “to ‘show good cause’

5

by demonstrating harm or prejudice that will result from the discovery.” FED.R.CIV.P. 26(c)(1).

6

Satisfying the “good cause” obligation is a challenging task. A party seeking “a stay of discovery carries

7

the heavy burden of making a ‘strong showing’ why discovery should be denied.” Gray v. First Winthrop

8

Corp., 133 F.R.D. 39, 40 (N.D.Cal.1990) (citing Blankenship v. Hearst Corp. 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir.

9

1975)).

10

Generally, imposing a stay of discovery pending a motion to dismiss is permissible if there are no

11

factual issues raised by the motion to dismiss, discovery is not required to address the issues raised by the

12

motion to dismiss, and the court is “convinced” that the plaintiff is unable to state a claim for relief. Rae

13

v. Union Bank, 725 F.2d 478, 481 (9th Cir. 1984); White v. Am. Tobacco Co., 125 F.R.D. 508 (D. Nev.

14

1989) (citing Wood v. McEwen, 644 F.2d 797, 801 (9th Cir. 1981) cert. denied, 455 U.S. 942 (1982).

15

Typical situations in which staying discovery pending a ruling on a dispositive motion are appropriate

16

would be where the dispositive motion raises issues of jurisdiction, venue, or immunity. TradeBay, LLC

17

v. Ebay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 600 (D. Nev. 2011).

18

Courts in the District of Nevada apply a two-part test when evaluating whether a discovery stay

19

should be imposed. Id. (citations omitted). First, the pending motion must be potentially dispositive of the

20

entire case or at least the issue on which discovery is sought. Id. Second, the court must determine whether

21

the pending motion to dismiss can be decided without additional discovery. Id. When applying this test,

22

the court must take a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the pending dispositive motion to assess whether

23

a stay is warranted. Id. The purpose of the “preliminary peek” is not to prejudge the outcome of the motion

24

to dismiss. Rather, the court’s role is to evaluate the propriety of an order staying or limiting discovery

25

with the goal of accomplishing the objectives of Rule 1.

DISCUSSION

1
2

Defendants’ Motion to stay is granted for two reasons. First, Plaintiff failed to file an opposition

3

to Defendants’ motion to stay. Local Rule 7-2(d) states, “[t]he failure of an opposing party to file points

4

and authorities in response to any motion shall constitute consent to the granting of the motion.” Here,

5

Plaintiffs failed to file points and authorities in opposition to Defendants’ motion. As a result, Plaintiffs

6

consented to the granting of the motion under Local Rule 7-2(d).

7

Second, Defendants’ Motion to Stay is granted on the merits. The pending motions to dismiss are

8

dispositive motions that may resolve all issues in controversy. After a “preliminary peek" and in light of

9

the goals of Rule 1 to “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive” determination of all cases, the Court finds

10

that the Motions to Dismiss have merit and demonstrate good cause to stay discovery.

11

Accordingly, and for good cause shown,

12

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Stay Discovery (#49) is hereby GRANTED. In the

13

event resolution of Defendants' motions to dismiss (#31 & #33) do not result in the disposition of this

14

case, the parties must file a joint discovery plan within 21 days of the issuance of the order resolving that

15

motion.

16
17
18

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a status hearing is scheduled for 10:00 a.m., August 15, 2016,
in courtroom 3D.
DATED this 8th day of March, 2016.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

_________________________
CAM FERENBACH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE