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)

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