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