Wilmington Trust, N.A. v. MRT Assets, LLC et al

Filing 62

ORDER Denying without prejudice 60 Stipulation to Stay Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 10/18/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 10 WILMINGTON TRUST, N.A., 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 11 Plaintiff, 16 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulation to stay discovery deadlines. Docket No. 17 60. The parties ask the Court to stay discovery until former defendant MRT Assets, LLC’s pending 18 motion to dismiss and Plaintiff’s pending motion to consolidate are decided. Id; see also Docket 19 Nos. 13 (motion to dismiss), 26 (motion to consolidate). For the reasons stated below, the 20 stipulation is DENIED without prejudice. 12 vs. 13 ZHK INC., et al., 14 Defendants. Case No. 2:17-cv-00705-RFB-NJK ORDER DENYING STIPULATION TO STAY DISCOVERY (Docket No. 60) 21 Courts have broad discretionary power to control discovery. See, e.g., Little v. City of 22 Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir.1988). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for 23 automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” 24 Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 600 (D. Nev. 2011). In deciding whether to grant a 25 stay of discovery, the Court is guided by the objectives of Rule 1 to ensure a just, speedy, and 26 inexpensive determination of every action. Id. at 602-03. Motions to stay discovery pending 27 resolution of a dispositive motion may be granted when: (1) the pending motion is potentially 28 dispositive; (2) the potentially dispositive motion can be decided without additional discovery; and 1 (3) the Court has taken a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the potentially dispositive motion to 2 evaluate the likelihood of dismissal. See Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. 3 Nev. 2013). A party seeking to stay discovery pending resolution of a potentially dispositive motion 4 bears the burden of establishing that discovery should be stayed. See Kabo Tools Co. v. Porauto 5 Indus. Co., Ltd., 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 156928, *1 (D. Nev. Oct. 31, 2013) (citing Holiday Sys., Int’l 6 of Nev. v. Vivarelli, Scharwz, and Assocs., 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 125542, *5 (D. Nev. Sept. 5, 7 2012)). 8 As an initial matter, the parties ask the Court to issue a stay, in part, because of a pending 9 motion to dismiss; however, the pending motion to dismiss was filed by MRT Assets, LLC, a former 10 defendant that was voluntarily dismissed by Plaintiff on April 18, 2017. Docket Nos. 13 (motion to 11 dismiss), 20 (notice of voluntary dismissal).1 None of the remaining Defendants filed a motion to 12 join MRT Assets, LLC’s motion to dismiss and, therefore, the parties cannot request a stay of 13 discovery based on, in part, MRT Assets, LLC’s motion to dismiss. See White v. American Tobacco 14 Co., 125 F.R.D. 508, 509 (D. Nev. July 18, 1997) (denying a defendant’s motion to stay discovery 15 based on a motion to dismiss that was filed by another defendant and no joinder was filed). 16 Moreover, the parties’ stipulation is devoid of points and authorities as to why discovery in 17 this case should be stayed until the Court issues a ruling on the pending motion to consolidate. 18 Docket No. 26. Therefore, the Court DENIES without prejudice the stipulation to stay discovery. 19 Docket No. 60. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 DATED: October 18, 2017 22 ______________________________________ NANCY J. KOPPE United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 1 On April 19, 2017, Plaintiff asked the Court to deny the motion to dismiss as moot since MRT Assets, LLC has already been dismissed from the instant case. Docket No. 25 at 2. 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?