Bank of New York Mellon v. Vegas Property Services, Inc. et al
Filing
21
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's ECF No. 16 Motion to stay discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 5/2/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
VEGAS PROPERTY SERVICES, INC., et al.,
14
Defendant(s).
15
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 2:17-cv-00776-MMD-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 16)
16
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to stay discovery pending resolution of its motion
17
for summary judgment. See Docket No. 16; see also Docket No. 15 (motion for summary judgment).
18
Defendant filed a response in opposition. Docket No. 20. No reply was filed. The Court finds the
19
motion properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons discussed below, the
20
Court DENIES the motion to stay discovery.
21
The Court has broad discretionary power to control discovery. See, e.g., Little v. City of Seattle,
22
863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic
23
or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay,
24
Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011).1 The party seeking a stay carries the heavy burden of making
25
26
27
28
1
As the briefing acknowledges, various judges in this District have found it appropriate to stay
proceedings pending resolution of petitions for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. Docket No.
20 at 5. That issue is not presently before the Court, but rather the motion seeks a stay of discovery pending
resolution of Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
1
a strong showing why discovery should be denied. See, e.g., Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda
2
Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997). The case law in this District makes clear that requests to
3
stay all discovery may be granted when: (1) the pending motion is potentially dispositive; (2) the
4
potentially dispositive motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken
5
a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the potentially dispositive motion and is convinced that the plaintiff
6
will be unable to state a claim for relief. See Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D.
7
Nev. 2013).2
8
The Court finds that a stay of discovery is not appropriate in this case. Most significantly, the
9
Court has taken a preliminary peek at the motion for summary judgment and is not convinced that it will
10
be granted.3 It bears repeating that the filing of a non-frivolous dispositive motion, standing alone, is
11
simply not enough to warrant staying discovery. See, e.g., Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 603. Instead, the
12
Court must be “convinced” that the dispositive motion will be granted. See, e.g., id. “That standard is
13
not easily met.” Kor Media, 294 F.R.D. at 583. “[T]here must be no question in the court’s mind that
14
the dispositive motion will prevail, and therefore, discovery is a waste of effort.” Id. (quoting Trazska
15
v. Int’l Game Tech., 2011 WL 1233298, *3 (D. Nev. Mar. 29, 2011)) (emphasis in original). The Court
16
requires this robust showing that the dispositive motion will succeed because applying a lower standard
17
would likely result in unnecessary delay in many cases. Id. (quoting Trazska, 2011 WL 1233298, at *4).
18
The Court has carefully reviewed the arguments presented in the motion for summary judgment,
19
as well as the arguments made in the briefing on the motion to stay discovery.4 The Court is simply not
20
convinced that the motion for summary judgment will be granted, such that conducting discovery will
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
The pending motion is somewhat unusual in that it is the plaintiff seeking a stay of discovery
pending resolution of its dispositive motion. 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 for summary judgment.
3
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.
4
Briefing on the motion for summary judgment has not been completed.
2
1
be a waste of effort. See, e.g., Bayview Loan Serv., LLC v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC, 2017 WL
2
1100955, at *4-5 (D. Nev. Mar. 22, 2017) (rejecting arguments similar to those presented by Plaintiff
3
here).
4
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to stay discovery. Docket No. 16.
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
DATED: May 2, 2017
7
8
______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?