Morris v. Caberto et al

Filing 38

ORDER Granting 34 Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of 5 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 12/21/16. (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
BRENT MORRIS,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
BOYD GAMING CORPORATION, et al.,
14
Defendant(s).
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:16-cv-02416-GMN-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 34)

16

Pending before the Court is a motion to stay discovery pending resolution of Defendants’ motion

17

to dismiss or for summary judgment. Docket No. 34; see also Docket No. 5 (motion to dismiss).1

18

Plaintiff has filed a response in opposition. Docket No. 37. The Court finds the motion properly

19

resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons discussed below, the motion to stay

20

is hereby 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

The motion is brought by all appearing Defendants, except Defendant Rachel Martines. Ms.
Martines has made only a limited appearance to set aside the entry of default. Docket No. 20.

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. Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D.

6

Nev. 2013).2

7

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

8

resolution of the motion to dismiss or for summary judgment at Docket No. 5. In the event the order

9

resolving that motion does not result in the disposition of this case, the parties shall file within 14 days

10

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

11

discovery.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

DATED: December 21, 2016

14

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

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