Montgomery v. Airline Professionals Association, International Brotherhood

Filing 13

ORDER - The # 12 Stipulation to extend the deadline for the Rule 16 hearing GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The case management conference set for August 4, 2015 is hereby VACATED. However, the request for a stay of this case until the motion to dismiss is decided is DENIED without prejudice. One or both of the parties shall have leave to file a fully briefed motion to stay on or before August 7, 2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke on 7/30/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
DAVID MONTGOMERY,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL
)
SERVICES GROUP, INC., et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
PRESENT:

3:15-CV-0178-HDM (VPC)
MINUTES OF THE COURT

THE HONORABLE VALERIE P. COOKE, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEPUTY CLERK:

LISA MANN

REPORTER: NONE APPEARING

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER(S): NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:
The stipulation to extend the deadline for the Rule 16 hearing (#12) GRANTED in part
and DENIED in part. The case management conference set for August 4, 2015 is hereby
VACATED. However, the request for a stay of this case until the motion to dismiss is decided is
DENIED without prejudice.
The explosion of Rule 12(b)(6) motions in the wake of Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal 556 U.S. 662, 129
S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009), has made speedy determinations of cases increasingly more
difficult. Prohibiting or delaying all discovery will often cause unwarranted delay, especially if a
pending dispositive motion challenges fewer than all of plaintiff’s claims.
A stay of all discovery should only be ordered if the court is “convinced” that a plaintiff
will be unable to state a claim for relief. However, as the court in Mlejnecky v. Olympus Imaging
America, Inc., 2011 WL 489743 at *6 (E.D.Cal. Feb. 7, 2011) recognized, taking a “preliminary
peek” and evaluating a dispositive motion puts a magistrate judge in an awkward position.
Rather, this court’s role is to evaluate the propriety of an order staying or limiting
discovery with the goal of accomplishing the objectives of Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 1. With Rule 1 as
its prime directive, this court must decide whether it is more just to speed the parties along in
discovery and other proceedings while a dispositive motion is pending, or whether it is more just

to delay or limit discovery and other proceedings to accomplish the inexpensive determination of
the case. Tradebay, LLC v. Ebay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 603 (D.Nev. 2011).
With these principles in mind, one or both of the parties shall have leave to file a fully
briefed motion to stay on or before August 7, 2015. If a motion to stay is not filed on or before
this date, a case management conference shall be reset by the court for the next available date.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK
By:

/s/
Deputy Clerk