Scher v. City of Las Vegas, NV et al

Filing 19

ORDER Granting 17 Motion to Stay. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 5/26/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
MICHAEL C. SCHER,

10
11
12
13
14

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CITY OF LAS VEGAS, NV, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:14-cv-02105-APG-CWH
ORDER

15

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (doc. # 17), filed

16

April 23, 2015, and Plaintiff’s response (doc. # 18), filed April 29, 2015. Defendants did not file a

17

reply.

18

Defendants move to stay discovery in the instant case, claiming a stay is warranted because

19

Defendants have a pending motion to dismiss in which Defendants ask the Court to dismiss the instant

20

case due to insufficient service of process. Defendants add that no factual issues are raised in that

21

motion, and they are likely to prevail.

22
23

Plaintiff, in response, asks the Court to deny Defendants’ motion to stay because service was
properly executed in the instant case. Defendants did not file a reply.

24

Courts have broad discretionary power to control discovery including the decision to allow or

25

deny discovery. See e.g., Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988); Landis v. North

26

American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). This power to stay is “incidental to the power inherent in

27

every court to control the disposition of the causes of action on its docket with economy of time and

28

effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 254. In exercising its discretion,

1

the court must consider factors like, “wise judicial administration, giving regard to conservation of

2

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

3

v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976).

4

An overly lenient standard for granting a motion to stay would result in unnecessary delay in

5

many cases. That discovery may involve inconvenience and expense is not sufficient to support a stay

6

of discovery. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev.

7

1997).1 Rather, a stay of discovery should only be ordered if the court is convinced that a plaintiff will

8

be unable to state a claim for relief. See Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 603; see also Wood v. McEwen, 644

9

F.2d 797, 801 (9th Cir. 1981) (per curiam). Ultimately, the party seeking the stay “carries the heavy

10

burden of making a ‘strong showing’ why discovery should be denied.” Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 601

11

(citing Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir.1975)). Moreover, a court should not

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

A review of the record reveals that Defendants are correct and service of process is insufficient

18

in the instant case. As such, the Court finds that Defendants have made the strong showing necessary

19

to support a stay of discovery, which would promote efficiency and justice in the instant case.

20
21
22

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay (doc. # 17) is
granted.
DATED: May 26, 2015
______________________________________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

As noted in Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., “[t]he fact that a non-frivolous motion is pending is simply not enough
to warrant a blanket stay of all discovery.” 278 F.R.D. 597, 603 (D. Nev. 2011).

2