Christensen et al v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC et al

Filing 30

ORDER Denying Defendant Bank of America's 22 Motion to Stay. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 08/17/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - NEV)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
JENNIFER CHRISTENSEN, et al .,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, et al.,
14
Defendant(s).
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:16-cv-01200-GMN-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 22)

16

Pending before the Court is Defendant Bank of America’s motion to stay discovery pending

17

resolution of its motion to dismiss. Docket No. 22; see also Docket No. 8 (motion to dismiss).

18

Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition, and Bank of America filed a reply. Docket Nos. 28, 29. The

19

Court finds the matter properly resolved without oral argument. See Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons

20

discussed below, the motion to stay is hereby DENIED.

21

The Court has broad discretionary power to control discovery. See, e.g., Little v. City of Seattle,

22

863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic

23

or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay,

24

Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). The party seeking a stay carries the heavy burden of making

25

a strong showing why discovery should be denied. See, e.g., Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda

26

Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997). The case law in this District makes clear that requests to

27

stay all discovery may be granted when: (1) the pending motion is potentially dispositive; (2) the

28

potentially dispositive motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken

1

a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the potentially dispositive motion and is convinced that the plaintiff

2

will be unable to state a claim for relief. See Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D.

3

Nev. 2013).1

4

The Court finds that a stay of discovery is not appropriate in this case.2 Most significantly, the

5

Court has taken a preliminary peek at the motion to dismiss and is not convinced that Plaintiffs will be

6

unable to state a claim. It bears repeating that the filing of a non-frivolous dispositive motion, standing

7

alone, is simply not enough to warrant staying discovery. See, e.g., Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 603.

8

Instead, the Court must be “convinced” that the dispositive motion will be granted. See, e.g., id. “That

9

standard is not easily met.” Kor Media, 294 F.R.D. at 583. “[T]here must be no question in the court’s

10

mind that the dispositive motion will prevail, and therefore, discovery is a waste of effort.” Id. (quoting

11

Trazska v. Int’l Game Tech., 2011 WL 1233298, *3 (D. Nev. Mar. 29, 2011)) (emphasis in original).

12

The Court requires this robust showing that the dispositive motion will succeed because applying a

13

lower standard would likely result in unnecessary delay in many cases. Id. (quoting Trazska, 2011 WL

14

1233298, at *4). The Court has carefully reviewed the arguments presented in the motion to dismiss

15

and subsequent briefing. The Court is simply not convinced that Plaintiffs will be unable to state a

16

claim, such that conducting discovery will be a waste of effort.

17

Accordingly, the motion to stay discovery is hereby DENIED.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

DATED: August 17, 2016

20

______________________________________
_____________________
__
__
NANCY J. KOPPE
Y KOPPE
OPPE
United States Magistrate Judge
Magistrate
M i ra

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

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. See Tradebay,
278 F.R.D. at 603. The undersigned’s “preliminary peek” at the merits of that motion is not intended to
prejudice its outcome. See id.
2

As a threshold issue, the Court notes that no other defendant joined in the motion to dismiss. Cf.
Docket No. 12 (Experian’s answer). As such, any stay stemming from Bank of America’s motion to dismiss
would be limited to discovery involving Bank of America. See, e.g., White v. American Tobacco Co., 125
F.R.D. 508, 509 (D. Nev. 1989).
2