Norman v. GEICO Advantage Insurance Company

Filing 14

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 12 Stipulation to Stay Discovery. Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order due in 7 days as outlined by the Order. See order for additional deadline and instructions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah on 8/10/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS)

Case 2:20-cv-01214-APG-EJY Document 14 Filed 08/10/20 Page 1 of 2

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4

REYMON BAYLON NORMAN,

5
6
7
8

Case No. 2:20-CV-01214

Plaintiff,
ORDER

v.
GEICO ADVANTAGE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.

9
10

Before the Court is the Joint Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 12). In their Joint Motion,

11

the parties explain that a motion to dismiss was filed by GEICO seeking to dismiss two of three

12

claims asserted by Plaintiff. The parties contend that moving forward with written and oral

13

discovery during the pendency of the motion to dismiss will be inefficient. The parties admit that

14

the motion to dismiss is not case dispositive, but contend “there is sufficient uncertainty as to how

15

the Court may rule” such that moving forward with discovery may result in wasted time and

16

money. The stay requested will, according to the parties, promote justice and “avoid the unnecessary

17

expenditure of resources.”

18

The Court understand the parties’ position, which is clearly supported by the law when a

19

motion to dismiss is likely to lead to the disposition of an entire case. Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc.,

20

278 F.R.D. 597, 600 (D. Nev. 2011) citing Skellup Indust. Ltd. v. City of L.A., 163 F.R.D. 598, 600-

21

01 (C.D. Cal. 1995). Of course, that is not the situation here. Moreover, the parties’ argument

22

regarding the potential waste of resources is true for every case in which a motion to dismiss seeks

23

to limit claims rather than dismiss the entirety of a case filed. Multiple rounds of written discovery,

24

a concern expressed by the parties, is not unusual and not so overwhelming that it militates in favor

25

of a stay. Conversely, the Court agrees that proceeding with certain categories of discovery is highly

26

inefficient.

27
28
1

Case 2:20-cv-01214-APG-EJY Document 14 Filed 08/10/20 Page 2 of 2

1

Accordingly,

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 12) is

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

GRANTED in part and DENIED in Part.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all oral discovery is stayed during the pendency of the
motion to dismiss.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all expert discovery is stayed during the pendency of the
motion to dismiss.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that written discovery on Plaintiff’s elder exploitation and extra
contractual claims is stayed during the pendency of the motion to dismiss.

10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that written discovery, including, but not necessarily limited

11

to exchanging initial disclosures, and propounding interrogatories, document requests, and requests

12

for admissions pertaining to the breach of contract claim shall proceed. The parties shall submit a

13

discovery plan and scheduling order regarding this discovery within seven (7) days of the date of

14

this Order.

15

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no later than seven (7) days following the Court’s order

16

issuing a decision on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, the parties shall file a joint stipulation

17

identifying all remaining discovery to be completed together with a scheduling order for the

18

completion of the same.

19
20

Dated this 10th day of August, 2020

21
22
23

ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2