Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation et al v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC et al

Filing 103

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay Discovery 74 is Granted. If necessary, the parties shall file a joint discovery plan within seven days of the issuance of an order resolving the pending Motion for Summary Judgment 70 and Motion to Dismiss 46 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 3/9/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - PS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9
10
11
12
13
14

FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORP.,
et al.,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, et al.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:15-cv-01338-GMN-CWH
ORDER

15

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion to stay discovery (doc. # 74), filed

16

December 21, 2015, Defendant Las Vegas Development Group’s response, filed January 11, 2016, and

17

Defendant SFR Investment Pool 1, LLC’s limited response, filed January 13, 2016. Defendant Nevada

18

New Builds, LLC did not file a response. Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s reply, filed January 21,

19

2016.

20

A court has broad discretionary power to control its docket, which extends to the issuance of

21

a stay. See e.g., Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). This power to stay is

22

“incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes of action on

23

its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Id. In exercising

24

its discretion, the court must consider factors such as “wise judicial administration, giving regard to

25

conservation of judicial resources and comprehensive disposition of litigation.” Colorado River Water

26

Conserv. Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976). An overly lenient standard for granting a

27

motion to stay would result in unnecessary delay in many cases. Moreover, a court should not grant

28

a stay absent a showing of hardship if “there is even a fair possibility that the stay... will work damage

1

to someone else.” Dependable Highway Express, Inc. v. Navigators Insurance Co., 498 F.3d 1059,

2

1066 (9th Cir. 2007). Therefore, a court must balance the competing interests affected by a stay such

3

as the “hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward.” Lockyer v.

4

State of California, 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005).

5

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have made the strong showing necessary to support a stay of

6

discovery that would promote efficiency and justice in this case. Defendants will not be prejudiced

7

because they will have an opportunity to conduct discovery, if appropriate, after the stay.

8

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to stay discovery (doc. # 74)

9

is granted. If necessary, the parties shall file a joint discovery plan within seven days of the issuance

10

of an order resolving the pending motion for summary judgment (doc. # 70) and motion to dismiss

11

(doc. # 46).

12

DATED: March 9, 2016

13
14

______________________________________

15

C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2