Lawrence et al v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department et al

Filing 36

ORDER Granting 34 Joint Motion to Stay Discovery. Discovery shall be stayed until 2/8/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 10/11/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9
10

JACQUELINE LAWRENCE, et al.,

11

Plaintiff(s),

12

vs.

13

LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al.,

14
Defendant(s).
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:16-cv-03039-JCM-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 34)

16

Pending before the Court is a joint motion to stay discovery pending Plaintiffs’ exhaustion of

17

their administrative remedies against the Federal Defendants and resolution of their anticipated motion

18

for leave to file a second amended complaint. Docket No. 34. The Federal Defendants failed to file a

19

proper response in opposing the motion. See Docket No. 35.1 Courts have broad discretionary power

20

to control discovery. See, e.g., Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir.1988). In deciding

21

whether to grant a stay of discovery, the Court is guided by the objectives of Rule 1 to ensure a just,

22

speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action. Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597,

23

600 (D. Nev. 2011). In this case, the objectives of Rule 1 are best served by staying discovery until the

24
25
26
27
28

1

The response fails to include citation to any legal authority, and can be construed as consent to the
granting of the motion on that basis. See Local Rule 7-2(d). At any rate, the response fails to include any
meaningfully developed argument articulating a basis on which the Court should deny the pending motion
to stay discovery. Cf. Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 FR.D. 579, 582 n.3 (D. Nev. 2013) (courts do
not address arguments that are not meaningfully developed).

1

Court can determine whether a proposed second amended complaint filed after exhaustion of

2

administrative remedies provides a jurisdictional basis for the case to proceed against the Federal

3

Defendants.2 The Court will not enter an indefinite stay of discovery, however, and will instead stay

4

discovery for a period of four months without prejudice to the filing of a request to extend the stay.

5

Accordingly, the motion to stay discovery is GRANTED as follows. Discovery shall be stayed

6

until February 8, 2018. In the event Plaintiffs exhaust their administrative remedies and the Court

7

resolves their motion for leave to file a second amended complaint before February 8, 2018, an amended

8

discovery plan shall be filed within 14 days of the issuance of that order. Otherwise, either a request to

9

extend the stay of discovery or an amended discovery plan shall be filed by February 8, 2018.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

DATED: October 11, 2017

12

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

The Court herein expresses no opinion on that anticipated motion.
2