Arcamone-Makinano v. Haaland

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: September 27, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00621
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5

6 AMELIA ARCAMONE-MAKINANO, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00621-JAD-NJK 7 Plaintiff(s), Order 8 v. [Docket No. 24] 9

10 DEBRA HAALAND, et al., 11 Defendant(s). 12 13 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ renewed motion to stay discovery pending 14 resolution of their motion to dismiss. Docket No. 24; see also Docket No. 13 (motion to dismiss). 15 The Court has considered Defendants’ motion, Plaintiffs’ response, and Defendants’ reply. Docket 16 Nos. 24, 25, 27. The motion is properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. For the 17 reasons discussed below, the motion to stay discovery is GRANTED. 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 plaintiff will be unable to prevail. Kor Media Grp., LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 28 1} 2013). The Court is guided in its analysis by the objectives in Rule 1 to secure a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of cases. Zradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 602. 3 A stay of discovery is warranted in this case. Defendants and Plaintiffs agree that the 4| motion to dismiss is dispositive. Docket No. 24 at 6; Docket No. 25 at 4. Plaintiffs submit that 5|| additional discovery is needed to resolve the motion to dismiss. Docket No. 25 at 4, 8n.1. The 6| motion to dismiss, however, is already fully briefed. Docket Nos. 13, 14, 18.! Finally, the 7|| undersigned’s evaluation of the motion to dismiss reveals that it is sufficiently meritorious to 8|| justify a stay of discovery.” 9 Accordingly, the motion to stay discovery is GRANTED. Docket No. 24. In the event resolution of the motion to dismiss does not result in the termination of this case, a joint proposed discovery plan must be filed within 30 days of the issuance the order resolving the motion to dismiss. 13} IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: September 27, 2022 aA 15 J Bo 16 United States‘Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24] ! Plaintiffs have filed a motion to file surreply, which remains pending. Docket No. 23. The 35 proposed surreply is attached to the motion; therefore, no discovery is needed to complete it. 2 Conducting this preliminary peek puts the undersigned in an awkward position because the 26]| assigned district judge who will decide the underlying motions may have a different view of their merits. See Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 603. This “preliminary peek” at the merits of the underlying 27] motions is not intended to prejudice their outcome. See id. As a result, the undersigned will not provide a lengthy discussion of the merits of the underlying motions. Nonetheless, the undersigned 28] has carefully reviewed the arguments presented in the underlying motions and subsequent briefing.