Ratcliff v. Faulkner et al

Filing 112

ORDER.IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the 104 stipulation to stay discovery is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the prior 96 stipulation to stay discovery is denied as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's 109 motion to stay discovery is denied as moot. See order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts on 8/29/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ALZ)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

***
Evan Ratcliff,

Case No. 2:21-cv-01351-RFB-DJA
Plaintiff,

v.

Order

Bob Faulkner, et al.,
Defendants.
Before the Court are two stipulations to stay the case and Plaintiff’s motion to stay the

12

case. (ECF Nos. 96, 104, and 109). These filings are more appropriately characterized as

13

requests to stay discovery, rather than the entire case, because they only seek to suspend

14

discovery deadlines and not the case altogether. So, the Court treats them as motions to stay

15

discovery. Although the parties have not cited the governing standard for motions to stay in their

16

stipulations, the Court finds good cause to grant the most recent one. (ECF No. 104). The Court

17

denies the older motion to stay as moot. (ECF No. 96). And because Plaintiff is not permitted to

18

file on his own behalf while represented and because the stipulation the Court granted moots

19

Plaintiff’s motion, the court denies Plaintiff’s motion to stay discovery as moot. (ECF No. 109).

20

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket stays of

21

discovery because a potentially dispositive motion is pending. Skellerup Indus. Ltd. v. City of

22

L.A., 163 F.R.D. 598, 600–01 (C.D. Cal. 1995). A court may, however, stay discovery under Fed.

23

R. Civ. P. 26(c). The standard for staying discovery under Rule 26(c) is good cause. The test this

24

Court applies considers (1) whether the dispositive motion can be decided without further

25

discovery, and (2) whether good cause exists to stay discovery. Gibson v. MGM Resorts

26

International, No. 2:23-cv-00140-MMD-DJA, 2023 WL 4455726, at *3 (D. Nev. July 11, 2023).

27

Good cause may be established using the preliminary peek test, but it may also be established by

28

other factors not related to the merits of the dispositive motion. Id. For example, in many cases,

1

the movant seeks a stay of discovery to prevent “undue burden or expense.” See Fed. R. Civ. P.

2

26(c)(1). Accordingly, the movant must establish what undue burden or expense will result from

3

discovery proceeding when a dispositive motion is pending. Ultimately, guided by Fed. R. Civ.

4

P. 1, the Court is trying to determine “whether it is more just to speed the parties along in

5

discovery and other proceedings while a dispositive motion is pending, or whether it is more just

6

to delay or limit discovery and other proceedings to accomplish the inexpensive determination of

7

the case.” Tradebay. LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 603 (D. Nev. 2011).

8

Here, the parties have stipulated to stay discovery pending the resolution of a global

9

settlement of Plaintiff’s cases. (ECF Nos. 96 and 104). They add that they are entering into the

10

stipulation on the suggestion of the settlement judge. (ECF No. 104 at 3). The Court finds that

11

this constitutes good cause to stay discovery and grants the more recent stipulation. (ECF No.

12

104). It denies the prior stipulation as moot. (ECF No. 96).

13

Plaintiff has filed his own motion to stay discovery. (ECF No. 109). He requests a stay

14

so that he “can retain all documents from counsel that pertains to this case & so that Plaintiff can

15

have the appropriate time to amend his case…Plaintiff needs this time to amend due to being

16

denied of his eye medication…” (Id.). However, Plaintiff is represented by counsel and,

17

although he moved to remove his counsel, the Court denied that motion and instructed Plaintiff to

18

discuss the issue with his counsel, who could then file a motion to withdraw. (ECF Nos. 110,

19

111). Plaintiff’s counsel has not yet moved to withdraw and so, under Local Rule IA 11-6,

20

Plaintiff must not personally file a document—like his motion to stay—with the Court.

21

Additionally, the Court has already decided a stay is appropriate in granting the stipulation

22

requesting one. Finally, to the extent Plaintiff seeks relief from the Court related to his eye

23

medication, he must file the appropriate motion, through his attorney if he remains represented.

24
25

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the stipulation to stay discovery (ECF No. 104) is

26

granted. Discovery is stayed pending resolution of the global settlement of this and other cases.

27

If this case proceeds after the settlement process, the parties must file a stipulated discovery plan

28

thirty days after the process concludes.
Page 2 of 3

1
2
3
4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the prior stipulation to stay discovery (ECF No. 96) is
denied as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to stay discovery (ECF No. 109) is
denied as moot.

5
6

DATED: August 29, 2024

7
8
9

DANIEL J. ALBREGTS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 3 of 3