Mwithiga v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Filing 36

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 31 Uber's motion to stay discovery is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 32 Uber's motion to extend discovery is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 35 the parties' stipulation to extend discovery is DENIED as moot. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 12/4/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4

***

5

PETER MWITHIGA,

6

Case No. 2:18-cv-00768-GMN-CWH
Plaintiff,
ORDER

7

v.

8

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

9

Defendant.

10
Presently before the court is defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.’s Motion for Temporary

11
12

Stay of Discovery Pending Resolution of Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Motion

13

to Extend Discovery Deadline (ECF Nos. 31, 32), filed on October 31, 2018. Plaintiff Peter

14

Mwithiga filed a response (ECF No. 33) on November 5, 2018. Uber filed a reply (ECF No. 34)

15

on November 12, 2018.
Also before the court is the parties’ stipulation to extend discovery (ECF No. 35), filed on

16
17

November 30, 2018.

18

I.

BACKGROUND

19

The parties are familiar with the facts of this case and the court will not repeat them here

20

except where necessary. Mwithiga is an Uber driver. He brings nine claims against Uber in this

21

lawsuit, all of which Uber asserts are subject to an arbitration agreement. Uber filed a motion to

22

compel arbitration that is currently pending before the United States district judge assigned to this

23

case. (Mot. to Compel (ECF No. 10).) Uber now moves for a temporary stay of discovery

24

pending the court’s decision on the motion to compel arbitration, arguing the parties’ arbitration

25

agreement divests this court of jurisdiction over Mwithiga’s claims. Uber also moves to extend

26

the discovery deadlines in this case pending the court’s decision on the motion to compel

27

arbitration. Mwithiga responds that the arbitration agreement does not apply and that there is not

28

good cause to extend discovery.

1
2

II.

ANALYSIS
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic stays of discovery

3

when a potentially dispositive motion is pending. Skellercup Indus. Ltd. v. City of L.A., 163

4

F.R.D. 598, 600-01 (C.D. Cal 1995) (stating that a stay of discovery is directly at odds with the

5

need for expeditious resolution of litigation). Thus, the fact that a dispositive motion is pending

6

is not “a situation that in and of itself would warrant a stay of discovery.” Turner Broad. Sys.,

7

Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997) (quotation omitted). Nor does the

8

fact that “discovery may involve some inconvenience and expense” automatically warrant a stay

9

of discovery. Id. Rather, the court weighs Rule 1’s directive that the Federal Rules of Civil

10

Procedure must “be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive

11

determination of every action” against “the underlying principle that a stay of discovery should

12

only be ordered if the court is convinced that a plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief.”

13

Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 603 (D. Nev. 2011). The party seeking the stay

14

“carries the heavy burden of making a ‘strong showing’ why discovery should be denied.”

15

Turner Broad. Sys., Inc., 175 F.R.D. at 556.

16

In determining whether to stay discovery, the court considers whether (1) the pending

17

motion is potentially dispositive of the entire case or at least dispositive of the issue on which

18

discovery is sought, and (2) the pending potential dispositive motion can be decided without

19

additional discovery. Ministerio Roca Solida v. U.S. Dep’t of Fish & Wildlife, 288 F.R.D. 500,

20

506 (D. Nev. 2013). This analysis requires the court to take a “preliminary peek” at the merits of

21

the pending dispositive motion. Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. 597 at 603. It is within the court’s broad

22

discretion to control discovery to determine whether a stay of discovery is appropriate. Little v.

23

City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988).

24

Here, the court took a “preliminary peek” at the motion to compel arbitration and finds

25

that Uber made the strong showing necessary to support the requested stay of discovery. If the

26

motion to compel arbitration is granted, it will be dispositive of the pending claims in this case.

27

Additional discovery is not required for the court to determine whether the parties agreed to

28

submit this dispute to arbitration. If this case is subject to arbitration, the discovery likely would
Page 2 of 3

1

be less expensive and more efficient, which promotes Rule 1’s directives that cases be determined

2

in a just, speedy, and inexpensive manner. The court in its discretion therefore will grant Uber’s

3

motion to stay discovery.

4

III.

5
6
7

CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Uber’s motion to stay discovery (ECF No. 31) is

GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that discovery is temporary stayed pending the court’s

8

decision on Uber’s motion to compel arbitration (ECF No. 10). If the motion to compel

9

arbitration is denied, the parties must meet and confer and file a proposed discovery plan and

10
11
12
13
14

scheduling order with 21 days of the court’s order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Uber’s motion to extend discovery (ECF No. 32) is
DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ stipulation to extend discovery (ECF No.
35) is DENIED as moot.

15
16

DATED: December 4, 2018

17
18
19
20

C.W. HOFFMAN, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 3 of 3