American Fire and Casualty Company v. Unforgettable Coatings Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7

8 AMERICAN FIRE AND CASUALTY Case No. 2:21-cv-01555-JCM-NJK COMPANY, 9 Order Plaintiff(s), 10 [Docket No. 18] v. 11 UNFORGETTABLE COATINGS INC., et 12 al.,

13 Defendant(s). 14 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant’s motion to stay discovery 15 pending resolution of its motion for judgment on the pleadings. Docket No. 18.1 Defendants filed 16 a response. Docket No. 21. Plaintiff filed a reply. Docket No. 22. The motion is properly resolved 17 without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. 18 The Court has broad discretionary power to control discovery. See, e.g., Little v. City of 19 Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide 20 for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” 21 Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). Discovery should proceed 22 absent a “strong showing” to the contrary. Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 23 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997). The case law in this District makes clear that requests to stay 24 discovery may be granted when: (1) the underlying motion is potentially dispositive in scope and 25 effect; (2) the underlying motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court 26 has taken a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the underlying motion and is convinced that the 27 1 See also Docket No. 17 (motion for judgment on the pleadings); Docket No. 23 (response 28 thereto); Docket No. 24 (reply). 1} plaintiff will be unable to prevail. Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013). The Court is guided in its analysis by the objectives in Rule 1 to secure a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of cases. Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 602. 4 A stay of discovery is appropriate here. First, the underlying motion is potentially 5] dispositive as it seeks judgment on Plaintiff’s claim and the counterclaim. See Docket No. 17 at 6] 19. Second, the underlying motion involves legal issues for which discovery is not likely to be 7|| needed. Third, the undersigned’s evaluation of the motion for judgment on the pleadings reveals 8] that it is sufficiently meritorious to justify a stay of discovery. 9 Accordingly, the motion to stay discovery is GRANTED. In the event resolution of the 10] motion for judgment on the pleadings does not result in the termination of this case, a discovery 11} plan or joint status report must be filed within 14 days of the issuance of such order. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: February 1, 2022 ae Nancy J“Koppe 15 United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ——__________ ? Conducting the preliminary peek puts the undersigned in an awkward position because 26] the assigned district judge who will decide the underlying motion may have a different view of its merits. See Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 603. This “preliminary peek” at the merits of the underlying motion is not intended to prejudice its outcome. See id. As a result, the undersigned will not provide a lengthy discussion of the merits of the underlying motion. Nonetheless, the undersigned 28] has carefully reviewed the arguments presented in the underlying motion and subsequent briefing.