PNC Bank, National Association v. Starfire Condominium Owners' Association

Filing 17

ORDER that 15 Motion to Stay Discovery is granted. FURTHER ORDERED that discovery shall be stayed until the district judge rules on the pending motion for summary judgment (doc. # 14 ). FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint status report regarding the necessity of the stay within 10 days after the district judge rules on the pending motion for summary judgment (doc. # 14 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 6/30/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASOCIATION, )
a National Banking Association,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
STARFIRE CONDOMINIUM OWNERS’ )
ASSOCIATION, et al.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
)

2:15-cv-00108-RFB-CWH
ORDER

16

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff PNC Bank, N.A.’s (“plaintiff”) motion to stay

17

discovery (doc. # 15), filed June 1, 2015. Defendant Starfire Condominium Owners’ Association

18

(“defendant”) did not file an opposition.

19

DISCUSSION

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes of action on its docket with economy

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

v. McEwen, 644 F.2d 797, 801 (9th Cir. 1981) (per curiam). Ultimately, the party seeking the stay

6

“carries the heavy burden of making a ‘strong showing’ why discovery should be denied.”

7

Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 601 (citing Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir.1975)).

8

Moreover, a court should not grant a stay absent a showing of hardship if “there is even a fair

9

possibility that the stay... will work damage to someone else.” Dependable Highway Express, Inc.

10

v. Navigators Insurance Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007). Therefore, the court must balance

11

the competing interests affected by a stay such as, the “hardship or inequity which a party may suffer

12

in being required to go forward.” Lockyer v. State of California, 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir.

13

2005).

14

The Court finds that plaintiff has made the strong showing necessary to support a stay of

15

discovery that would promote efficiency and justice in this case. Defendant will not be prejudiced

16

because it will have an opportunity to conduct discovery, if appropriate, after the stay.

17
18
19
20

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s unopposed motion to stay
discovery (doc. # 15) is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that discovery shall be stayed until the district judge rules
on the pending motion for summary judgment (doc. # 14).

21

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint status report regarding the

22

necessity of the stay within 10 days after the district judge rules on the pending motion for summary

23

judgment (doc. # 14).

24

DATED: June 30, 2015

25
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

26
27
1

28

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-