Nelsen v. Konami Gaming, Inc.

Filing 26

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 21 the motion to stay discovery is GRANTED and, as a corollary, 20 the motion for protective order from already-propounded discovery requests is also GRANTED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 12/20/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10

COREY NELSEN,

11
Plaintiff(s),
12
v.
13
KONAMI GAMING, INC.,
14
Defendant(s).
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:17-cv-02248-APG-NJK
ORDER
(Docket Nos. 20, 21)

16

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s renewed motion for protective order and to stay

17

discovery pending resolution of its motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration. Docket Nos. 20, 21;

18

see also Docket Nos. 15, 16 (motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss). Plaintiff filed a response in

19

opposition. Docket No. 24; see also Docket No. 23 (response in opposition motion to compel arbitration

20

and to dismiss). Defendant filed a reply. Docket No. 25. The Court finds a hearing unnecessary. See

21

Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons discussed below, the motion for protective order and to stay discovery

22

is hereby GRANTED.

23

The Court has broad discretionary power to control discovery. See, e.g., Little v. City of Seattle,

24

863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic

25

or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay,

26

Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). The party seeking a stay carries the heavy burden of making

27

a strong showing why discovery should be denied. See, e.g., Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda

28

Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997). The case law in this District makes clear that requests to

1

stay all discovery may be granted when: (1) the pending motion is potentially dispositive; (2) the

2

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

3

a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the potentially dispositive motion and finds there is a sufficient

4

likelihood that the motion will be granted. See Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581

5

(D. Nev. 2013). Courts are more likely to stay discovery when the underlying motion raises critical

6

preliminary issues, such as jurisdiction. See Kabo Tools Co. v. Porauto Industries Co., 2013 WL

7

5947138, *1-2 (D. Nev. Oct. 31, 2013); see also Kidneigh v. Tournament One Corp., 2013 WL

8

1855764, at *2 (D. Nev. May 1, 2013) (finding that motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss raises

9

issues of jurisdiction and venue that should be resolved at “the earliest possible stage in litigation”).

10

Having reviewed these standards, the Court finds a stay of discovery to be appropriate. The

11

underlying motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss can be decided without discovery, would be

12

dispositive of court proceedings, and is sufficiently meritorious to justify delaying discovery until it can

13

be decided by the district judge.1 Accordingly, the motion to stay discovery is GRANTED and, as a

14

corollary, the motion for protective order from already-propounded discovery requests is also

15

GRANTED. In the event resolution of the motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss does not result

16

in termination of this case, then the parties shall file a proposed discovery plan within 14 days of the

17

issuance of the order resolving that motion.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

DATED: December 20, 2017

20

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

21
22
23
24
25
1

26
27
28

Conducting the 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. As a result, the undersigned will not provide a lengthy discussion of the
merits of the pending motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss in this instance.
2