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)
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?