JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al v. 7290 Sheared Cliff Lane UN 102 Trust et al

Filing 36

ORDER Denying 35 Motion to Stay re Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 5/8/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et al.,
11
Plaintiffs,
12
vs.
13
14
15

7290 SHEARED CLIFF LANE UN 102
TRUST, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:17-cv-00225-JCM-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 35)

16
17

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff JP Morgan Chase Bank and Defendant 7290 Sheared Cliff

18

Lane UN 102 Trust’s joint motion to stay discovery pending resolution of Defendant’s motion to dismiss

19

and Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. See Docket No. 35; see also Docket No. 12 (motion to

20

dismiss), Docket No. 26 (motion for summary judgment). The Court finds the motion properly resolved

21

without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES the

22

motion to stay discovery.

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

Nev. 2013).1

6

The Court finds that a stay of discovery is not appropriate in this case. Most significantly, the

7

Court has taken a preliminary peek at the two pending motions and is not convinced that either one will

8

be granted.2 It bears repeating that the filing of a non-frivolous dispositive motion, standing alone, is

9

simply not enough to warrant staying discovery. See, e.g., Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 603. Instead, the

10

Court must be “convinced” that the dispositive motion will be granted. See, e.g., id. “That standard is

11

not easily met.” Kor Media, 294 F.R.D. at 583. “[T]here must be no question in the court’s mind that

12

the dispositive motion will prevail, and therefore, discovery is a waste of effort.” Id. (quoting Trazska

13

v. Int’l Game Tech., 2011 WL 1233298, *3 (D. Nev. Mar. 29, 2011)) (emphasis in original). The Court

14

requires this robust showing that the dispositive motion will succeed because applying a lower standard

15

would likely result in unnecessary delay in many cases. Id. (quoting Trazska, 2011 WL 1233298, at *4).

16

The Court has carefully reviewed the arguments presented in the motion to dismiss and the

17

motion for summary judgment, as well as the arguments made in the briefing on the motion to stay

18

discovery.3 The Court is simply not convinced that either dispositive motion will be granted, such that

19
20
21
1

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The pending motion is somewhat unusual in that Plaintiff and Defendant each seek a stay of
discovery pending resolution of their respective dispositive motions. As such, the Court modifies the
applicable standards in that it is taking a preliminary peek to determine whether it is convinced that
dispositive relief will be granted to Plaintiff vis-a-vis its motion to dismiss or to Defendant vis-a-vis its
motion for summary judgment.
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.
3

Briefing on the motion for summary judgment has not been completed.
2

1

conducting discovery will be a waste of effort.4 See, e.g., Bayview Loan Serv., LLC v. SFR Investments

2

Pool 1, LLC, 2017 WL 1100955, at *4-5 (D. Nev. Mar. 22, 2017).

3

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion to stay discovery. Docket No. 35.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

DATED: May 8, 2017.

6
______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4

Additionally, the parties have represented to the Court that the Homeowners Association has
requested that the default against it be set aside and that Plaintiffs’ counsel has agreed to this request.
Docket No. 29 at 2. The Association is not a party to the instant motion to stay, or to either of the dispositive
motions.
3