Nevada Power Company v. Trench France SAS et al

Filing 32

ORDER Granting 25 Defendant's Motion to Stay Discovery pending resolution of 15 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 06/12/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC) Modified on 6/12/2015 (AC).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
NEVADA POWER COMPANY,

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

16

Pending before the Court is Defendant Trench France SAS’s motion to stay discovery

17

pending resolution of its motion to dismiss. Docket No. 25. Plaintiff filed a response and Defendant

18

filed a reply. Docket Nos. 29, 30. The Court finds this motion appropriately resolved without oral

19

argument. See Local Rule 78-2. For the reasons discussed below, the motion to stay discovery is

20

GRANTED and discovery in this matter shall be stayed as to Defendant Trench France SAS pending

21

resolution of its motion to dismiss.

11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
TRENCH FRANCE SAS, et al.,
14
Defendant(s).

Case No. 2:15-cv-00264-JCM-NJK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
STAY
(Docket No. 25)

22

“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket stays of

23

discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278

24

F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). In determining whether a stay is appropriate, the Court considers

25

the goals of Rule 1 to “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive” determination of all cases. Id., at

26

602-03.1 The case law in this District makes clear that requests to stay all discovery may be granted

27

when: (1) the pending motion is potentially dispositive; (2) the potentially dispositive motion can

28
1

Unless otherwise noted, references to “Rules” refer to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

1

be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a “preliminary peek” at the

2

merits of the potentially dispositive motion and is convinced that the plaintiff will be unable to state

3

a claim for relief. See Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013).2

4

Generally speaking, in the context of a pending motion to dismiss challenging personal jurisdiction,

5

courts are more inclined to stay discovery because it presents a “critical preliminary question.” Kabo

6

Tool Co. v. Porauto Indus. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53570, at *2 (D. Nev. Apr. 15, 2013)

7

(quoting AMC Fabrication, Inc. v. KRD Trucking West, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146270, at *2

8

(D. Nev. Oct. 10, 2012)). As such, courts in this District have found that a motion challenging

9

personal jurisdiction “strongly favors a stay, or at a minimum, limitations on discovery until the

10

question of jurisdiction is resolved.” Kabo Tool Co. v. Porauto Indus. Co., 2013 WL 5947138, at

11

*2 (D. Nev. Oct. 31, 2013) (quoting AMC Fabrication, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146270, at *5-

12

6).

13

With that distinction in mind, the Court has taken a “preliminary peek” at the pending motion

14

to dismiss. Plaintiff argues that the exercise of personal jurisdiction is permissible because (1) there

15

are approximately eight hundred Trench France SAS bushings currently within the State of Nevada;

16

(2) Trench France SAS maintains a significant sales division targeting regions including the State

17

of Nevada; (3) Trench France SAS contacted Nevada Power in Nevada to send a representative to

18

participate in a joint inspection of the failed bushings; and (4) Trench France SAS acknowledged in

19

writing that is has an ongoing business relationship with Nevada Power. See Docket No. 19, at 8-12.

20

It appears that Plaintiff may prevail in opposing the motion to dismiss, but “how the

21

undersigned sees the jurisdictional picture may be very different from how the assigned district judge

22

will see the jurisdictional picture.” AMC Fabrication, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146270, at *10.

23

Because the Court is not convinced that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Defendant Trench

24

France SAS will be found to be proper by the district judge, it is appropriate to stay discovery

25

pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss. See id.

26
2

27
28

Conducting this preliminary peek puts the undersigned in an awkward position because the
assigned district judge who will decide the motion to dismiss may have a different view of its merits.
See Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 603. The undersigned’s “preliminary peek” at the merits of that motion
is not intended to prejudice its outcome. See id.
-2-

1

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

2

should be allowed. See Docket No. 29, at 10-11. In opposing the pending motion to dismiss,

3

Plaintiff argues that it should be allowed to conduct jurisdictional discovery if the district judge finds

4

that the record is not sufficiently developed. See Docket No. 19, at 12. Thus, it is more prudent for

5

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

6

district judge in his determination of the merits of the pending motion to dismiss. See AMC

7

Fabrication, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146270, at *10.

8
9

For the reasons discussed above, the motion to stay discovery (Docket No. 25) pending
resolution of Defendant’s motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

DATED: June 12, 2015

12
13
14
15

NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-