Intrieri v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC

Filing 11

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Stay Discovery 7 is hereby GRANTED. In the event resolution of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 8 does not result in the disposition of this case, the parties must file a joint discovery plan with in 21 days of the issuance of the order resolving that motion.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a status hearing is scheduled for 10:00 a.m., 10/24/16, in courtroom 3D. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 3/15/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - PS)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4

NITA INTRIERI,
5

Plaintiffs,
6
7

vs.
GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC,

8

Defendant.

9

Before the court is Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery (#7).

10
11

2:15-cv-00383-RFB-VCF
ORDER

Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition to the Motion to Stay Discovery. The time to oppose has
passed.

12

LEGAL STANDARD

13

When evaluating a motion to stay discovery while a dispositive motion is pending, the court

14

initially considers the goal of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1. The guiding premise of the Rules is that

15

the Rules “should be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination

16

of every action.” FED. R. CIV. P. 1. It needs no citation of authority to recognize that discovery is

17

expensive. The Supreme Court has long mandated that trial courts should resolve civil matters fairly but

18

without undue cost. Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 306 (1962). This directive is echoed

19

by Rule 26, which instructs the court to balance the expense of discovery against its likely benefit. See

20

FED.R.CIV.P. 26(B)(2)(iii).

21

Consistent with the Supreme Court’s mandate that trial courts should balance fairness and cost,

22

the Rules do not provide for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion

23

is pending. Skellerup Indus. Ltd. v. City of Los Angeles, 163 F.R.D. 598, 600–01 (C.D. Cal. 1995).

24

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1), “[t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order to

25

protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.”

1

Whether to grant a stay is within the discretion of the court. Munoz–Santana v. U.S. I.N.S., 742 F.2d 561,

2

562 (9th Cir. 1984). The party seeking the protective order, however, has the burden “to ‘show good cause’

3

by demonstrating harm or prejudice that will result from the discovery.” FED.R.CIV.P. 26(c)(1).

4

Satisfying the “good cause” obligation is a challenging task. A party seeking “a stay of discovery carries

5

the heavy burden of making a ‘strong showing’ why discovery should be denied.” Gray v. First Winthrop

6

Corp., 133 F.R.D. 39, 40 (N.D.Cal.1990) (citing Blankenship v. Hearst Corp. 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir.

7

1975)).

8

Generally, imposing a stay of discovery pending a motion to dismiss is permissible if there are no

9

factual issues raised by the motion to dismiss, discovery is not required to address the issues raised by the

10

motion to dismiss, and the court is “convinced” that the plaintiff is unable to state a claim for relief. Rae

11

v. Union Bank, 725 F.2d 478, 481 (9th Cir. 1984); White v. Am. Tobacco Co., 125 F.R.D. 508 (D. Nev.

12

1989) (citing Wood v. McEwen, 644 F.2d 797, 801 (9th Cir. 1981) cert. denied, 455 U.S. 942 (1982).

13

Typical situations in which staying discovery pending a ruling on a dispositive motion are appropriate

14

would be where the dispositive motion raises issues of jurisdiction, venue, or immunity. TradeBay, LLC

15

v. Ebay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 600 (D. Nev. 2011).

16

Courts in the District of Nevada apply a two-part test when evaluating whether a discovery stay

17

should be imposed. Id. (citations omitted). First, the pending motion must be potentially dispositive of the

18

entire case or at least the issue on which discovery is sought. Id. Second, the court must determine whether

19

the pending motion to dismiss can be decided without additional discovery. Id. When applying this test,

20

the court must take a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the pending dispositive motion to assess whether

21

a stay is warranted. Id. The purpose of the “preliminary peek” is not to prejudge the outcome of the motion

22

to dismiss. Rather, the court’s role is to evaluate the propriety of an order staying or limiting discovery

23

with the goal of accomplishing the objectives of Rule 1.

24
25

DISCUSSION

1
2

Defendants’ Motion to stay is granted for two reasons. First, Plaintiff failed to file an opposition

3

to Defendants’ motion to stay. Local Rule 7-2(d) states, “[t]he failure of an opposing party to file points

4

and authorities in response to any motion shall constitute consent to the granting of the motion.” Here,

5

Plaintiffs failed to file points and authorities in opposition to Defendants’ motion. As a result, Plaintiffs

6

consented to the granting of the motion under Local Rule 7-2(d).

7

Second, Defendants’ Motion to Stay is granted on the merits. The pending motion to dismiss is a

8

dispositive motion that may resolve all issues in controversy. After a “preliminary peek" and in light of

9

the goals of Rule 1 to “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive” determination of all cases, the Court finds

10

that the Motion to Dismiss has merit and demonstrate good cause to stay discovery.

11

Accordingly, and for good cause shown,

12

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Stay Discovery (#7) is hereby GRANTED. In the

13

event resolution of Defendant's motion to dismiss (#8) does not result in the disposition of this case, the

14

parties must file a joint discovery plan within 21 days of the issuance of the order resolving that motion.

15
16
17

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a status hearing is scheduled for 10:00 a.m., October 24, 2016,
in courtroom 3D.
DATED this 15th day of March, 2016.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

_________________________
CAM FERENBACH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE