Rivera v. Body Armor Outlet, LLC et al

Filing 23

ORDER granting ECF No. 19 Motion to Extend Discovery Stay. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 9/14/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 10 ALEJANDRO RIVERA, 11 12 Plaintiff(s), vs. 13 BODY ARMOR OUTLET, LLC, et al., 14 Defendant(s). 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:17-cv-02261-MMD-NJK ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY STAY (Docket No. 19) 16 Pending before the Court is Defendant Body Armor Outlet, LCC’s (“BAO”) motion to extend 17 discovery stay pending resolution of its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Docket No. 18 19; see also Docket No. 18 (BAO’s motion to dismiss). Defendant Ace Welding Co., Inc. (“Ace 19 Welding”) joined the motion to extend the stay, Docket No. 20, and Plaintiff responded, Docket No. 22; 20 see also Docket No. 17 (Ace Welding’s motion to dismiss). The Court finds the motion properly 21 decided without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons discussed more fully below, the motion 22 to extend discovery stay is hereby GRANTED. 23 Courts have 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, 600 (D. Nev. 2011). In deciding whether to grant a stay of discovery, the Court 27 is guided by the objectives of Rule 1 to ensure a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every 28 action. Id. at 602-03. Motions to stay discovery pending resolution of a dispositive motion may be 1 granted when: (1) the pending motion is potentially dispositive; (2) the potentially dispositive motion 2 can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a “preliminary peek” at the 3 merits of the potentially dispositive motion to evaluate the likelihood of dismissal. See Kor Media 4 Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013). A party seeking to stay discovery pending 5 resolution of a potentially dispositive motion bears the burden of establishing that discovery should be 6 stayed. See Kabo Tools Co. v. Porauto Indus. Co., Ltd., 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 156928, *1 (D. Nev. Oct. 7 31, 2013) (citing Holiday Sys., Int’l of Nev. v. Vivarelli, Scharwz, and Assocs., 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 8 125542, *5 (D. Nev. Sept. 5, 2012)). 9 Defendant BAO seeks dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. Docket No. 18. Generally 10 speaking, a pending motion challenging personal jurisdiction “strongly favors a stay, or at a minimum, 11 limitations on discovery until the question of jurisdiction is resolved” because such a motion presents 12 a “critical preliminary question.” Hologram USA, Inc. v. Pulse Evolution Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 13 45940, at *3 (D. Nev. Apr. 8, 2015) (collecting cases). In determining whether a stay is appropriate, the 14 Court is mindful that “how the undersigned sees the jurisdictional picture may be very different from 15 how the assigned district judge will see the jurisdictional picture.” Id. at *3 (quoting AMC Fabrication, 16 Inc. v. KRD Trucking West, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist Lexis 146270, *10 (D. Nev. Oct. 10, 2012)). 17 Nonetheless, the filing of a motion challenging personal jurisdiction does not mandate a stay of 18 discovery and the Court retains discretion to require discovery to go forward. Kabo Tools, 2013 U.S. 19 Dist. Lexis 156928, at *2. 20 // 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 2 1 Applying these standards with respect to Defendant BAO’s personal jurisdiction challenge, the 2 Court finds that sufficient cause exists to GRANT the motion to extend discovery stay as to all parties 3 pending resolution of Defendant BAO’s and Defendant Ace Welding’s motions to dismiss. In the event 4 the resolution of the motions to dismiss do not result in the dismissal of the action against any party, the 5 parties remaining in the case shall file a joint proposed discovery plan no later than 14 days after the 6 entry of the order regarding either motion to dismiss. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 DATED: September 14, 2017 9 ______________________________________ NANCY J. KOPPE United States Magistrate Judge 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?