Allstate Insurance Company et al v. Shah, MD et al

Filing 15

ORDER Denying Without Prejudice 12 Stipulation to Stay Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 11/9/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO., et al., 10 11 12 13 14 ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) DR. RUSSELL J. SHAH, M.D., et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) Case No. 2:15-cv-01786-APG-CWH ORDER 15 This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Stipulation to Stay Discovery (doc. # 12), filed 16 November 4, 2015. The parties seek to stay discovery based on a pending motion to dismiss in the 17 instant case. 18 A court has broad discretionary power to control its docket, which extends to the issuance of 19 a stay. See e.g., Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). This power to stay is 20 “incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes of action on 21 its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Id. In exercising 22 its discretion, the court must consider factors such as “wise judicial administration, giving regard to 23 conservation of judicial resources and comprehensive disposition of litigation.” Colorado River Water 24 Conserv. Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976). An overly lenient standard for granting a 25 motion to stay would result in unnecessary delay in many cases. Moreover, a court should not grant 26 a stay absent a showing of hardship if “there is even a fair possibility that the stay... will work damage 27 to someone else.” Dependable Highway Express, Inc. v. Navigators Insurance Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 28 1066 (9th Cir. 2007). Therefore, a court must balance the competing interests affected by a stay such 1 as the “hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward.” Lockyer v. 2 State of California, 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005). 3 Here, the parties fail to file points and authorities in support of their request for a stay, as 4 required by Local Rule 7-2. The parties also fail to cite case law showing that the pending motion to 5 dismiss necessarily requires the Court to stay the instant case. As such, the Court finds that a stay is 6 not warranted. 7 8 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ Stipulation to Stay Discovery (doc. # 12) is denied without prejudice. DATED: November 9, 2015 10 11 ______________________________________ C.W. Hoffman, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?