Morris v. Caberto et al

Filing 31

ORDER that 26 Motion for a Court Order Setting Discovery Schedule is DENIED as premature with respect to the request to commence discovery and is DENIED without prejudice with respect to the request to defer or deny summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56(d). Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 12/8/16. (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
BRENT MORRIS,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
BOYD GAMING CORPORATION, et al.,
14
Defendant(s).
15
16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:16-cv-02416-GMN-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 26)

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Request for a Court Order Setting Discovery Schedule.”
Docket No. 26. Defendants filed a response in opposition. Docket No. 27.

18

Liberally interpreted, Plaintiff’s motion seeks two forms of relief. First, Plaintiff seeks entry of

19

a scheduling order governing discovery. Defendants respond that discovery is not needed. Generally

20

speaking, parties are required to submit a discovery plan and proposed scheduling order unless a stay

21

of discovery has been entered.1 The Court hereby orders that, to the extent Defendants believe discovery

22

should be stayed pending resolution of their motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, Defendants

23

must file a motion to stay discovery addressing the relevant standards. See, e.g., Kor Media Group,

24

LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013). That motion to stay discovery shall be filed by

25

December 15, 2016. If the motion to stay discovery is filed, discovery shall be stayed on an interim

26
27
28

1

The mere pendency of a dispositive motion, standing alone, is not sufficient to stay discovery.
Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011).

1

basis pending resolution of the motion to stay. If no motion to stay is filed, the parties shall file a joint

2

proposed discovery plan by December 22, 2016.

3

Plaintiff also appears to seek relief from summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56(d) of the

4

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Docket No. 26 at 2-3. This request is defective for a number of

5

reasons. First, motions must be limited to seeking one form of relief. Local Rule IC 2-2. As noted

6

above, the primary thrust of Plaintiff’s motion is that he wishes to proceed with discovery. To the extent

7

he also wishes to oppose summary judgment on the grounds that discovery is necessary, that must be

8

a separate filing. Second, and similarly, to ensure that arguments are considered with respect to the

9

pertinent motion, parties must clearly label the documents they file. For these reasons, the pending

10

motion will be denied without prejudice to the extent Plaintiff seeks relief under Rule 56(d). If Plaintiff

11

wishes to seek such relief, he must file a separate document that is clear titled as a request seeking denial

12

or deferral of the motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56(d).

13

In short, the pending motion is DENIED as premature with respect to the request to commence

14

discovery and is DENIED without prejudice with respect to the request to defer or deny summary

15

judgment pursuant to Rule 56(d).

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

DATED: December 8, 2016

18
19

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2