Trice v. JP Morgan Chase Bank et al

Filing 27

ORDER Granting 25 Motion to Stay Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 11/9/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
GERALDINE A. TRICE,
11
Plaintiff,
12
vs.
13
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:15-cv-01614-APG-NJK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
TO STAY DISCOVERY
(Docket No. 25)

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to stay discovery pending resolution of their

17 motions to dismiss with prejudice. Docket No. 25; see also Docket No. 13, 15 (motions to dismiss).
18 The Court has considered Defendants’ motion and Plaintiff’s response. Docket Nos. 25, 26. No reply
19 is needed. The Court finds the matter properly resolved without oral argument. See Local Rule 78-2.
20 For the reasons discussed below, the motion to stay is hereby GRANTED.
21

“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket stays of discovery

22 when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601
23 (D. Nev. 2011). The case law in this District makes clear that requests to stay all discovery may be
24 granted when: (1) the pending motions are potentially dispositive; (2) the potentially dispositive motions
25 can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a “preliminary peek” at the
26
27
28

1 merits of the potentially dispositive motions and is convinced that the plaintiff will be unable to state
2 a claim for relief. See Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013).1
3

Having reviewed the underlying motions to dismiss, the Court finds that these elements are

4 present in this case and GRANTS the motion to stay discovery. Docket No. 25. If the motions to
5 dismiss are not granted in full, the parties shall file a proposed discovery plan within seven days of the
6 issuance of the order resolving the first motion to dismiss that is decided.
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

DATED: November 9, 2015.

9
______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1

Conducting this preliminary peek puts the undersigned in an awkward position because the assigned
district judge who will decide the motions to dismiss may have a different view of their merits. See
26 Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 603. The undersigned’s “preliminary peek” at the merits of those motions is not
27 intended to prejudice their outcome. See id.
25

28
2