Topolewski et al v. Blyschak et al

Filing 43

ORDER Granting 36 Motion to Stay Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 10/11/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 GARY TOPOLEWSKI, et al., 11 Plaintiff(s), 12 vs. 13 PAUL BLYSCHAK, et al., 14 Defendant(s). 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:16-cv-01588-JAD-NJK ORDER (Docket No. 36) 16 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to stay pending resolution of motions to dismiss. 17 Docket No. 36, Docket No. 38 (joinder); see also Docket Nos. 11, 12 (motions to dismiss). Any 18 response had to be filed by October 6, 2016, Docket No. 37, but none has been filed to date. 19 The Court has broad discretionary power to control discovery. See, e.g., Little v. City of Seattle, 20 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic 21 or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, 22 Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). The party seeking a stay carries the heavy burden of making 23 a strong showing why discovery should be denied. See, e.g., Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda 24 Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997). The case law in this District makes clear that requests to 25 stay all discovery may be granted generally when: (1) the pending motion is potentially dispositive; (2) 26 the potentially dispositive motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court has 27 taken a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the potentially dispositive motion and is convinced that the 28 plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief. See Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 1 581 (D. Nev. 2013).1 In the specific context of a motion challenging personal jurisdiction, courts are 2 more inclined to stay discovery and have found that such a motion favors a stay. See, e.g., Hologram 3 USA, Inc. v. Pulse Evolution Corp., 2015 WL 1600768, *1 (D. Nev. Apr. 8, 2016). 4 Having reviewed the underlying motions to dismiss, the Court finds that these elements are met 5 in this case and GRANTS the motion to stay discovery. If the motions to dismiss are not granted in full, 6 the parties shall file a proposed discovery plan within seven days of the issuance of the order resolving 7 the first motion to dismiss that is decided. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 DATED: October 11, 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 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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?