Trice v. Damion et al

Filing 38

ORDER granting ECF No. 37 Motion to Stay Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 8/26/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
GERALDINE A. TRICE,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
JAMIE DAMION, et al.,
14
Defendant(s).
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:16-cv-01348-MMD-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 37)

16

Pending before the Court is a motion to stay filed by some Defendants. Docket No. 37. The

17

motion seeks a stay pending resolution of various pending dispositive motions. See id.1 Plaintiff did

18

not file a response to the motion to stay. The Court finds the matter properly resolved without oral

19

argument. See Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons discussed below, the motion to stay is hereby

20

GRANTED.

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
27
28

1

12, 19.

The other appearing defendants have joined in some of those dispositive motions. See Docket Nos.

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

Nev. 2013).2

7

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

8

in this case and GRANTS the motion to stay discovery. If the motions to dismiss are not granted in full,

9

the parties shall file a proposed discovery plan within seven days of the issuance of the order resolving

10

the first motion to dismiss that is decided.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

DATED: August 26, 2016

13

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

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