Carloni v. McDougal

Filing 16

ORDER granting 5 Motion to Stay. FURTHER ORDERED that the stay of discovery will automatically lift upon the Court's denial of 3 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 8/30/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8
9
10
11
12

ADAM CARLONI,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
SHANE MCDOUGAL,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:17-cv-01917-JAD-GWF
ORDER

13
14

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Stay (ECF No. 5), filed on July

15

19, 2017. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to this motion and the time for response has

16

now expired.

17

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket stays of

18

discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending. See Skellerup Indus. Ltd. V. City of

19

L.A., 163 F.R.D. 598, 600-1 (C.D. Cal. 1995). Ordinarily, a dispositive motion does not warrant a

20

stay of discovery. See Twin City Fire Insurance v. Employers of Wausau, 124 F.R.D. 652, 653 (D.

21

Nev. 1989). See also Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556

22

(D. Nev. 1997). The moving party carries the heavy burden of making a strong showing of why

23

discovery should be denied. Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F .R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev.

24

2013).

25

Courts have broad discretionary power to control discovery. See Little v. City of Seattle,

26

863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir.1988). When deciding whether to grant a stay of discovery, the Court is

27

guided by the objectives of Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 1 that ensures a “just, speedy, and inexpensive

28

determination of every action.” Kor Media Group, 294 F.R.D. at 581. The Court may grant a

1

motion to stay discovery when “(1) the pending motion is potentially dispositive; (2) the potentially

2

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

3

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

4

plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief.” Kor Media Group, 294 F.R.D. at 581.

5

Although Plaintiff’s claims for relief are not clearly discernible, this matter arises from

6

allegations related to Plaintiff’s interactions with Defendant, a recruiting center leader, when

7

attempting to enlist in the United States Army. After conducting its “preliminary peek” of

8

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, the Court finds that a stay of discovery is warranted. First, the

9

pending motion to dismiss, if granted, may resolve the primary issues raised in Plaintiff’s

10

Complaint. Second, the Court finds that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss can be decided without

11

additional discovery. Finally, the Court is convinced that a stay of discovery is warranted based

12

upon the merits of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

13

In addition, Local Rule 7-2(d) provides that “The failure of an opposing party to file points

14

and authorities in response to any motion shall constitute a consent to the granting of the motion.”

15

Plaintiff did not file points and authorities in response to Defendant’s instant motion to stay.

16

Therefore, Plaintiff is considered to have consented to the granting of Defendant’s motion under

17

LR 7-2(d).

18

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Stay (ECF No. 5) is granted.

19

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the stay of discovery will automatically lift upon the

20

Court’s denial of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5) in whole or in part. The parties shall

21

have fourteen (14) days from the entry of an order denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss to file a

22

proposed discovery plan and scheduling order.

23

DATED this 30th day of August, 2017.

24
25
26

______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

27
28
2