Hudson Insurance Company v. Miller et al
Filing
35
ORDER Denying without prejudice 34 Stipulation to Stay Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 11/10/2015. (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
HUDSON INSURANCE COMPANY,
11
12
13
14
15
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
JAMES MILLER, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)
Case No. 2:15-cv-00349-GMN-CWH
ORDER
16
This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Stipulation to Stay Discovery (doc. # 34), filed
17
November 9, 2015. The parties seek to stay discovery based on pending motions for summary
18
judgment and a motion to dismiss in this case.
19
A court has broad discretionary power to control its docket, which extends to the issuance of
20
a stay. See e.g., Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). This power to stay is
21
“incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes of action on
22
its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Id. In exercising
23
its discretion, the court must consider factors such as “wise judicial administration, giving regard to
24
conservation of judicial resources and comprehensive disposition of litigation.” Colorado River Water
25
Conserv. Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976). An overly lenient standard for granting a
26
motion to stay would result in unnecessary delay in many cases. Moreover, a court should not grant
27
a stay absent a showing of hardship if “there is even a fair possibility that the stay... will work damage
28
to someone else.” Dependable Highway Express, Inc. v. Navigators Insurance Co., 498 F.3d 1059,
1066 (9th Cir. 2007). Therefore, a court must balance the competing interests affected by a stay such
1
as the “hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward.” Lockyer v.
2
State of California, 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005).
3
Here, the parties fail to file points and authorities in support of their request for a stay, as
4
required by Local Rule 7-2. The parties also fail to cite case law showing that the pending motions
5
necessarily require the Court to stay the instant case. As such, the Court finds that a stay is not
6
warranted.
7
8
9
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ Stipulation to Stay Discovery
(doc. # 34) is denied without prejudice.
DATED: November 10, 2015
10
11
12
______________________________________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?