Nevada Power Company v. Trench France SAS et al

Filing 54

ORDER Granting Defendant Siemens AG Osterreich's 45 Motion to Stay Discovery and Denying as moot Siemens' request for an order shortening time. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 11/24/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
NEVADA POWER COMPANY,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12

vs.

13

TRENCH FRANCE SAS, et al.,

14

Defendant(s).

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:15-cv-00264-JCM-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 45)

15
Pending before the Court is Defendant Siemens AG Österreich’s (“Siemens”) motion to stay
16
discovery pending resolution of its motion to dismiss. Docket No. 45; see also Docket Nos. 44, 48, 52.
17
Plaintiff filed a response in opposition, and Defendant filed a reply. Docket Nos. 47, 49. The Court
18
finds the motion properly resolved without oral argument. See Local Rule 78-2. For the reasons
19
discussed more fully below, the motion to stay discovery is hereby GRANTED.
20
“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket stays of discovery
21
when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601
22
(D. Nev. 2011). The case law in this District makes clear that requests to stay all discovery may be
23
granted when: (1) the pending motion is potentially dispositive; (2) the potentially dispositive motion
24
can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a “preliminary peek” at the
25
26
27
28

1

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

2

claim for relief. See Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013).1

3

Having reviewed the underlying motion to dismiss, the Court finds that these elements are

4

present in this case and GRANTS the motion to stay discovery. If the motion to dismiss is not granted

5

in full, the parties shall file a proposed discovery plan within seven days of the issuance of the order

6

resolving the motion to dismiss.

7

Defendant Siemens’ request for an order shortening time is hereby DENIED as moot.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

DATED: November 24, 2015

10

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

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