AH. v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: February 26, 2026
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01041
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 5 AH., Case No. 2:24-cv-01041-GMN-NJK 6 7 g Vv. [Docket No. 185] 9 Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, et al., 10 Defendant(s). 1] Pending before the Court is a joint motion by Plaintiff and Defendant Wynn seeking to stay 12] discovery pending resolution of Wynn’s motion for summary judgment. Docket No. 185. Having 13] considered the governing standards, Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581-83 (D. 14] Nev. 2013), the Court finds that a stay of discovery is warranted.! Accordingly, the Court 15] GRANTS the joint motion to stay discovery.” If resolution of the motion for summary judgment 16} does not result in termination of Defendant Wynn as a defendant in this case, the parties must file 17] a joint proposed discovery schedule within 14 days of the issuance of that order. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: February 26, 2026

Nancy J. Koppe\, 21 United Stateés-Magistrate Judge 22) _________ ' Conducting the preliminary peek puts the undersigned in an awkward position because 23} the assigned district judge will decide the underlying motion and may have a different view of the merits. See Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 603 (D. Nev. 2011). The undersigned’s 24| “preliminary peek” at the merits of the motion for summary judgment is not intended to prejudice its outcome. See id. The undersigned carefully reviewed the arguments presented in the 25] underlying motion and related briefing, but will not provide discussion of the merits herein. 26 * The parties also reference a pending Rule 56(d) motion. Obviously, nothing in this order is meant to impact the district judge’s determination as to whether discovery should be completed 27| prior to resolving the motion for summary judgment. The motion to stay is specific to Plaintiff and Defendant Wynn, so the ruling herein does not impact discovery as to any other Defendant. White v. Am. Tobacco Co., 125 F.R.D. 508, 510 (D. Nev. 1989).