Lial v. Bank of America, N.A., et al

Filing 20

ORDER Granting 16 Motion to Stay Discovery. In the event that the motion to dismiss is not granted in full, the parties shall file a joint proposed discovery plan within 14 days of the issuance of the order resolving the motion to dismiss. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 6/28/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
9
GARY W. LIAL, et al.,
10
Plaintiffs,
11
vs.
12
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:16-cv-00643-APG-NJK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
TO STAY
(Docket No. 16)

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

16 motion to dismiss, filed by Defendants Defendant Bank of America, N.A. and Federal National
17 Mortgage Association. Docket No. 16; see also Docket No. 9 (motion to dismiss). The motion to stay
18 was filed on June 6, 2016, but Plaintiffs have failed to file a response to date. See Docket; see also
19 Local Rule 7-2(b). Accordingly, the motion may be granted as unopposed. See Local Rule 7-2(d). For
20 that reason, as well as the reasons discussed below, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion to stay
21 discovery.
22

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

23 when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601
24 (D. Nev. 2011). The case law in this District makes clear that requests to stay all discovery may be
25 granted when: (1) the pending motion is potentially case-dispositive; (2) the potentially dispositive
26 motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a “preliminary peek”
27 at the merits of the motion and is convinced that the plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief.
28 See, e.g., Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013).

1

The Court finds these factors are present here. First, the motion to dismiss is potentially case-

2 dispositive as it challenges all pending claims. Second, the motion to dismiss can be decided without
3 additional discovery. Third, the Court has taken a preliminary peek at the merits of the motion to
4 dismiss and believes it will be granted.1
5

Accordingly, the motion to stay discovery, Docket No. 16, is hereby GRANTED. In the event

6 that the motion to dismiss is not granted in full, the parties shall file a joint proposed discovery plan
7 within 14 days of the issuance of the order resolving the motion to dismiss.
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

DATED: June 28, 2016.

10
______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

1

Conducting this preliminary peek puts the undersigned in an awkward position because the
assigned district judge who will decide the motion to dismiss may have a different view of its merits.
27
See Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 603. The undersigned’s “preliminary peek” at the merits of that motion is
28 not intended to prejudice its outcome. See id.
2