The Bank of New York Mellon v. Riverwalk Homeowners Association et al

Filing 33

ORDER that 32 Motion to Stay Discovery is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 12/10/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
9

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,

10

Plaintiff(s),

11

vs.

12

RIVERWALK HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, et al.,

13
Defendant(s).
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:15-cv-01178-RFB-NJK
ORDER

15

Pending before the Court is a motion to stay discovery filed by Defendant Riverwalk

16

Homeowners Association on December 9, 2015, Docket No. 32, which is hereby DENIED without

17

prejudice.

18

On September 10, 2015, the Court denied the parties’ proposed discovery plan because it sought

19

time to conduct discovery beyond the presumptively reasonable discovery period without sufficient

20

justification. Docket No. 26. One of the bases for the request for an extended discovery period was the

21

fact that motions to dismiss were pending. Docket No. 25 at 2. The Court found that to be an

22

insufficient basis for a prolonged discovery period, holding that “the pendency of dispositive motions,

23

standing alone, is not cause to delay discovery.” Docket No. 26 at 1. The parties then filed an amended

24

discovery plan pursuant to the Court’s order that set a discovery cutoff of January 12, 2016, which the

25

Court entered. Docket Nos. 28, 29. As such, the discovery cutoff is currently set to expire in roughly

26

one month.

27

The pending motion was not filed on an emergency basis, so it would be briefed according to the

28

default deadlines established in the Local Rules and then decided by the Court in the ordinary course.

1

Accounting for the three days added for service and the rules applicable when deadlines fall on

2

weekends, the response would be due on December 28, 2015, and the reply would be due on January

3

7, 2016. See, e.g., Local Rule 7-2.1 Given that timetable, it is highly unlikely that the Court would

4

resolve the motion prior to the discovery cutoff expiring three court days later. See, e.g., Cardoza v.

5

Bloomin’ Brands, Inc., ___ F. Supp. 3d ____, 2015 WL 6123192, *2 (“The Court generally prioritizes

6

resolution of those motions that have been pending for a longer period of time in the interest of fairness

7

to all parties”). In short, it appears that the pending motion to stay discovery is effectively moot because

8

it would not be resolved until after the fast-approaching discovery cutoff.

9

For the above reasons, the motion to stay is hereby DENIED as moot. If a renewed motion is

10

filed, it must explain in detail why it should not be denied as moot. It must also outline with specificity

11

the discovery that has been conducted to date and the discovery that the movant still wishes to conduct.

12

Cf. Local Rule 26-4. In addition, if that motion is filed on an emergency basis so that it can be decided

13

before the discovery cutoff, it must explain how the applicable standards have been met. See, e.g.,

14

Cardoza, 2015 WL 6123192, *1-4 (outlining procedural and substantive requirements for emergency

15

motions, including that “[t]he party seeking emergency relief must demonstrate that it is not at fault in

16

creating the situation that it asserts necessitates resolution of its motion on an expedited schedule”).

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

DATED: December 10, 2015

19

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
1

26
27
28

The filing of a motion to stay discovery does not effectuate a stay of discovery; discovery is not
stayed unless and until the Court so orders. See, e.g., Tinsley v. Kemp, 750 F. Supp. 1001, 1013 (W.D. Mo.
1990); Willemihn Houdstermaatschappij BJ v. Apollo Computer Inc., 707 F. Supp. 1429, 1441 (D. Del.
1989). Thus, the parties would be required to continue complying with their discovery obligations
throughout the briefing period.
2