Alexander et al v. Meiling et al
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke, on 1/4/2017. Stipulation to Extend Case Deadlines ECF No. 54 is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
JERRY ALEXANDER, et al.,
DEAN MEILING, et al.,
MINUTES OF THE COURT
THE HONORABLE VALERIE P. COOKE, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
REPORTER: NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER(S): NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:
The stipulation and order to extend case deadlines pending a ruling on defendants’
motions to dismiss (ECF No. 54) 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, the parties shall have leave to refile the stipulation to stay
discovery, or alternatively, a motion to stay discovery outlining a more specific and detailed
reason for staying discovery in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?