Brady v. Southwest Airlines Co. et al

Filing 60

ORDER Granting Defendant B/E Aerospace Aircraft's 46 Motion to Stay Discovery. Once the 43 Motion for Judgment is decided the remaining parties shall file a joint proposed discovery plan within seven days of the issuance of the order resolving that motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 8/5/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

CHELCEE BRADY,

)
)
Plaintiff(s),
)
)
vs.
)
)
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, et al.,
)
)
)
Defendant(s).
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:14-cv-02139-JCM-NJK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
STAY DISCOVERY
(Docket No. 46)

16

Pending before the Court is the motion to stay discovery filed by Defendant B/E Aerospace. Docket

17

No. 46 Defendant Southwest Airlines Co. filed a joinder. Docket No. 50. Plaintiff filed a response in

18

opposition and B/E Aerospace filed a reply. Docket Nos. 54, 59. The Court finds the motion properly

19

decided without oral argument. See Local Rule 78-2. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is

20

GRANTED.

21

B/E Aerospace seeks an order staying discovery pending resolution of, inter alia, its motion for

22

judgment on the pleadings challenging personal jurisdiction. While the filing of a motion challenging

23

personal jurisdiction does not automatically result in an order staying discovery, such a motion “strongly

24

favors a stay, or at a minimum, limitations on discovery until the question of jurisdiction is resolved.”

25

Kabo Tools Co. v. Porauto Indus. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 53570, *3 (D. Nev. Apr. 15, 2013) (quoting

26

AMC Fabrication, Inc. v. KRD Trucking West, Inc., 2012 WL 4846152, *2 (D. Nev. Oct. 10, 2012)).

27

Courts are more inclined to stay discovery pending resolution of such a motion because it presents a

28

“critical preliminary question.” Id. In this case, the undersigned has reviewed the briefing on the motion

1

for judgment on the pleadings, and finds B/E Aerospace’s arguments to have sufficient weight to warrant

2

staying discovery.1

3

Plaintiff also argues that a complete stay of discovery is not warranted because jurisdictional

4

discovery should be allowed. See Docket No. 54 at 3-4. In opposing the pending motion for judgment on

5

the pleadings, Plaintiff has requested that the district judge grant jurisdictional discovery if he finds that

6

the record is not sufficiently developed. See Docket No. 53 at 13. Thus, it is more prudent for the

7

undersigned to defer the question of whether jurisdictional discovery is necessary to the assigned district

8

judge in his determination of the merits of the pending motion to dismiss. See, e.g., AMC Fabrication,

9

2012 WL 4846152, at *4.

10

For the reasons discussed above, the motion to stay discovery pending resolution of B/E

11

Aerospace’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is hereby GRANTED. This stay applies to all

12

discovery, including discovery pertaining to Southwest Airlines. Once the motion for judgment is decided,

13

the remaining parties shall file a joint proposed discovery plan within seven days of the issuance of the

14

order resolving that motion.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

DATED: August 5, 2015

17

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Conducting this preliminary peek puts the undersigned in an awkward position, and is not meant
to prejudice the outcome of the motion to dismiss. See, e.g., Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D.
579, 583 n.4 (D. Nev. 2013) (citing TradeBay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 603 (D. Nev. 2011)).
Moreover, the Court is cognizant that how the undersigned “sees the jurisdictional picture may be very
different from how the assigned district judge will see the jurisdictional picture.” Kabo Tool, 2013 U.S.
Dist. Lexis 53570, at *3 (quoting AMC Fabrication, 2012 WL 4846152, at *4).
2