Archytas Automation, Inc. v. Haddington Dynamics II, LLC, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 3, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00816
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5

6 Archytas Automation, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00816-APG-NJK 7 Plaintiff(s), Order 8 v. [Docket No. 25] 9 Haddington Dynamics II, LLC, et al., 10 Defendant(s). 11 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to stay discovery pending resolution of 12 their motion to dismiss. Docket No. 25; see also Docket No. 24 (motion to dismiss). Plaintiff 13 filed a response in opposition. Docket No. 31. Defendants filed a reply. Docket No. 33. The 14 motion is properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons discussed 15 below, the motion to stay discovery is DENIED. 16 The Court has broad discretionary power to control discovery. See, e.g., Little v. City of 17 Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide 18 for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” 19 Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). The party seeking a stay of 20 discovery bears the heavy burden of making a strong showing that discovery should be denied. 21 Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997). Discovery may 22 be stayed when: (1) there is a pending motion that is potentially dispositive in scope and effect; 23 (2) the potentially dispositive motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the 24 Court has taken a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the underlying motion and is convinced that 25 Plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief. Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 26 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013). 27 The Court is not persuaded that a stay of discovery is warranted because the Court has not 28 been convinced that Plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief. It bears repeating that the 1} filing of a non-frivolous dispositive motion, standing alone, is not enough to warrant staying 2|| discovery. See, e.g., Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 603. Instead, the Court must be “convinced” that 3} the dispositive motion will be granted. See, e.g., id. “That standard is not easily met.” Kor Media, 4} 294 F.R.D. at 583. “[T]here must be no question in the court’s mind that the dispositive motion 5] will prevail, and therefore, discovery is a waste of effort.” Jd. (quoting Trazska v. Int’l Game Tech., 2011 WL 1233298, *3 (D. Nev. Mar. 29, 2011)) (emphasis in original). The Court requires this robust showing because applying a lower standard would likely result in unnecessary delay in 8| many cases. /d. (quoting Trazska, 2011 WL 1233298, at *4). The Court is not convinced that 9} Plaintiff will be unable to state a claim.' 10 Accordingly, the motion to stay discovery is DENIED. A stipulated discovery plan must 11} be filed by October 17, 2025. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: October 3, 2025

Nancy J. Keppe \ 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 the assigned district judge will decide the motion to dismiss and may have a different view of its merits. See Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 603. The undersigned’s “preliminary peek” at the merits of the motion to dismiss is not intended to prejudice its outcome. See id. Asa result, the undersigned will not provide elaborated discussion of the merits of the underlying motion in this instance. The Court notes that it is not convinced that, particularly at the pleading stage, all of Plaintiffs claims 27| will be found to be time-barred given the factual circumstances identified. While Defendants also raise myriad claim-specific arguments, the Court is not convinced that Plaintiff will be found to 28] be unable to state any claim.