Buckles v. Green Tree Servicing LLC et al

Filing 18

ORDER that 16 Stipulation and Order to Stay Discovery is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 12/2/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11

SANFORD BUCKLES,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
GREEN TREE SERVICING, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:15-cv-01581-GMN-CWH
ORDER

12
13

Presently before the court is the parties’ Stipulation and Order to Stay Discovery (ECF No.

14

16). The parties request that discovery be stayed until the court enters an order on the pending

15

motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 14, 15) in this case. The parties further state that they will conduct a

16

Rule 26(f) conference within three weeks of the court’s order on the pending motions to dismiss.

17

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic stays of discovery when

18

a potentially dispositive motion is pending. Skellercup Indus. Ltd. v. City of L.A., 163 F.R.D. 598,

19

600-01 (C.D. Cal 1995) (stating that a stay of discovery is directly at odds with the need for

20

expeditious resolution of litigation). Thus, the fact that a dispositive motion is pending is not “a

21

situation that in and of itself would warrant a stay of discovery.” Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v.

22

Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997) (quotation omitted). Nor does the fact that

23

“discovery may involve some inconvenience and expense” automatically warrant a stay of

24

discovery. Id. Rather, the Court weighs Rule 1’s directive that the Federal Rules of Civil

25

Procedure must “be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive

26

determination of every action” against “the underlying principle that a stay of discovery should only

27

be ordered if the court is convinced that a plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief.”

28

Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 603 (D. Nev. 2011). The party seeking the stay

1

“carries the heavy burden of making a ‘strong showing’ why discovery should be denied.” Turner

2

Broad. Sys., Inc., 175 F.R.D. at 556.

3

Here, the parties do not meet their burden of explaining why a stay of discovery is

4

appropriate in this case. They do not explain why they are requesting a stay. Nor do they explain

5

whether the pending motions to dismiss are potentially dispositive of the entire case or whether the

6

pending motions can be decided without additional discovery. See Ministerio Roca Solida v. U.S.

7

Dep’t of Fish & Wildlife, 288 F.R.D. 500, 506 (D. Nev. 2013). The court therefore is unable to

8

evaluate whether a stay of discovery is appropriate in this case.

9
10

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties’ Stipulation and Order to Stay Discovery
(ECF No. 16) is DENIED without prejudice.

11
12

DATED: December 2, 2015

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