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)

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