Proteinhouse Franchising, LLC et al v. Gutman et al

Filing 36

ORDER that 24 Ken B. Gutman's Motion for Stay is DENIED, without prejudice to filing a motion for protective order for discovery plaintiffs would not be entitled to obtain from Mr. Gutman were he a non-party witness rather than a party. The court will separately enter the discovery plan and scheduling order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 2/27/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7
8

PROTEINHOUSE FRANCHISING, LLC, et
al.,
Plaintiffs,

9
10
11
12

Case No. 2:17-cv-02816-APG-PAL
ORDER

v.

(Mot. for Stay – ECF No. 24)

KEN B. GUTMAN, et al.,
Defendants.

13

Before the court is Defendant Ken B. Gutman’s Motion for Stay (ECF No. 24) and

14

Plaintiffs Proteinhouse Franchising, LLC, LRAB, LLC, and Andrew F. Bick’s Proposed

15

Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 29). These matters are referred to the undersigned

16

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and LR IB 1-3 of the Local Rules of Practice.

17

On February 27, 2018, the court held a hearing on Gutman’s Motion and the Proposed

18

Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. Counsel for the parties were present. The court has

19

considered the Motion, Plaintiffs’ Opposition (ECF No. 27) and the arguments of counsel at the

20

hearing. Mr. Gutman did not file a reply and the deadline to do so has expired.

21

Mr. Gutman seeks a stay of discovery until after decision of his pending Motion to Dismiss

22

(ECF No. 25), which argues this court lacks personal jurisdiction over him. It is clear Mr. Gutman

23

has discoverable information and would be deposed in this case whether he is a party or a non-

24

party witness. Having reviewed and considered the matter, the court denies the motion to stay and

25

will enter a standard 180-day discovery plan and scheduling order. Although the court will not

26

stay all discovery in this case while Mr. Gutman’s motion to dismiss is pending, Gutman will not

27

be required to retain or disclose experts. Additionally, the court will consider any request to limit

28

the scope of discovery sought from Mr. Gutman while his motion to dismiss is pending, provided
1

1

the parties first make a genuine good faith effort to resolve scope of discovery disputes without

2

the court’s intervention.

3

IT IS ORDERED:

4

1. Defendant Ken B. Gutman’s Motion for Stay (ECF No. 24) is DENIED, without

5

prejudice to filing a motion for protective order for discovery plaintiffs would not be

6

entitled to obtain from Mr. Gutman were he a non-party witness rather than a party.

7

2. The court will separately enter the discovery plan and scheduling order.

8

Dated this 27th day of February, 2018.

9
10
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2