Flores v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 38

ORDER that 29 Motion to Stay Discovery is GRANTED. The Court STAYS discovery pending resolution of the motion to dismiss at Docket No. 17 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 11/10/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
LEONARD FLORES,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
WELLS FARGO, N.A., et al.,
14
Defendant(s).
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:16-cv-01676-RFB-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 29)

16

Pending before the Court is Defendant Wells Fargo’s motion to stay discovery pending resolution

17

of its motion to dismiss. See Docket No. 29; see also Docket No. 17 (motion to dismiss); Docket No.

18

20 (Defendant Ten-X’s joinder in motion to dismiss); Docket No. 35 (Defendant National Default

19

Servicing’s joinder in motion to dismiss); Docket No. 30 (Defendant Ten-X’s joinder in motion to stay).

20

To date, no response has been filed. For the reasons discussed below, the motion to stay is hereby

21

GRANTED.

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

Nev. 2013).1

5

The Court finds these standards met in this case, and therefore STAYS discovery pending

6

resolution of the motion to dismiss at Docket No. 17. In the event the order resolving the motion to

7

dismiss does not result in the disposition of this case, the parties shall file within 14 days thereof a joint

8

status report regarding whether discovery should proceed and, if so, a schedule for discovery.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

DATED: November 10, 2016

11

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

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