Himonic, LLC v. Chow

Filing 13

ORDER approving ECF No. 12 Stipulation to Stay Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 3/16/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
HIMONIC, LLC,
11
12
13
14
15

)
)
)
Plaintiff(s),
)
)
vs.
)
)
TING-PONG CHOW,
)
)
Defendant(s).
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:17-cv-03023-MMD-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 12)

16
17

Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulation to stay discovery pending resolution of

18

Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Docket No. 12; see also Docket No. 8 (motion to dismiss). For the

19

reasons discussed below, the stipulation to stay discovery is hereby GRANTED. Docket No. 12.

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

Having reviewed these standards, the Court finds that a stay of discovery is appropriate.1

8

Accordingly, the stipulation to stay discovery is GRANTED. Docket No. 12. In the event resolution

9

of the motion to dismiss does not result in termination of this case, the parties shall file a joint proposed

10

discovery plan no later than 14 days after the entry of the order on the motion to dismiss.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated: March 16, 2018

13
14

___________________________________
Nancy J. Koppe
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

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.
-2-