Neiman v. Barazani

Filing 14

ORDER granting 12 Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Motion to Dismiss. In the event resolution of Defendants motion to dismiss does not result in the termination of this case, a joint discovery plan must be filed within 14 days of the issuance of such order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 1/11/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS)

Case 2:21-cv-01824-JAD-NJK Document 14 Filed 01/11/22 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8

ALON NEIMAN, et al.,

9

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 2:21-cv-01824-JAD-NJK
Order

10

v.

11

GAVRIEL BARAZANI, et al.,

12
13

[Docket No. 12]

Defendants.
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to stay discovery pending resolution of

14 their motion to dismiss. Docket No. 12; see also Docket No. 6 (motion to dismiss). No response
15 was filed. See Docket. The motion to stay discovery is properly resolved without a hearing. See
16 Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons discussed below, the motion to stay discovery is GRANTED.
17

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

18 Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide
19 for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.”
20 Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). Discovery should proceed
21 absent a “strong showing” to the contrary. Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175
22 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997). The case law in this District makes clear that requests to stay
23 discovery may be granted when: (1) the underlying motion is potentially dispositive in scope and
24 effect; (2) the underlying motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court
25 has taken a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the underlying motion and is convinced that the
26 plaintiff will be unable to prevail. Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev.
27 2013). The Court is guided in its analysis by the objectives in Rule 1 to secure a just, speedy, and
28 inexpensive determination of cases. Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 602.
1

Case 2:21-cv-01824-JAD-NJK Document 14 Filed 01/11/22 Page 2 of 2

1

Considering the governing standards, the Court finds that a stay of discovery is appropriate

2 in this case. As to the first two requirements, the motion to dismiss is potentially dispositive of
3 this case and it can be decided without discovery. As to the third requirement, the undersigned’s
4 evaluation of the motion to dismiss reveals that it is sufficiently meritorious to justify a stay of
5 discovery.1
6

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to stay discovery is GRANTED. Docket No. 12. In the

7 event resolution of Defendants’ motion to dismiss does not result in the termination of this case, a
8 joint discovery plan must be filed within 14 days of the issuance of such order.
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 11, 2022

11

______________________________
Nancy J. Koppe
United States Magistrate Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

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
26 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. As a result, the undersigned will not
27 provide a lengthy discussion of the merits of the pending motion to dismiss in this instance.
Nonetheless, the undersigned has carefully reviewed the arguments presented in the motion to
28 dismiss and subsequent briefing.
2