Martinez v. Baker et al

Filing 35

ORDER that 34 Stipulation for Extension of Time re Discovery is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 12/7/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
ROBERT C. MARTINEZ,

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

16

Pending before the Court is a stipulation that certain Defendants do not need to respond to

17

any discovery until 30 days after a ruling on a pending motion to dismiss. Docket No. 34. Although

18

no so labeled, the request effectively seeks a stay of discovery with respect to these Defendants. The

19

filing of a dispositive motion, standing alone, is not sufficient grounds to stay discovery. See, e.g.,

20

Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). Instead, such a request must

21

address several additional considerations to show that a stay of discovery is proper. See, e.g., Kor

22

Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013) (outlining analysis). The pending

23

stipulation states only that the outcome of the motion to dismiss may eliminate the need for

24

discovery, without addressing the relevant standards. Accordingly, it is DENIED without prejudice.

11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
RENEE BAKER, et al.,
14
Defendant(s).

25

ORDER
(Docket No. 34)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

Case No. 2:16-cv-01546-JAD-NJK

DATED: December 7, 2016

27
28

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge