Balik v. City of Las Vegas

Opinion

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7

Case No. 2:21-cv-01701-RFB-NJK 9 Plaintiff, Order 10 v. [Docket No. 32, 35] 11 CITY OF LAS VEGAS, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 Pending before the Court is Defendant City of Las Vegas’s motion to stay discovery 14 pending resolution of its motion for judgment on the pleadings. Docket No. 35; see also Docket 15 No. 14 (motion for judgment on the pleadings). Plaintiff filed a response in opposition. Docket 16 No. 36. No reply was filed. See Docket. The motion to stay discovery is properly resolved without 17 a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons discussed below, the motion to stay discovery is 18 GRANTED.1 19 The Court has broad discretionary power to control discovery. See, e.g., Little v. City of 20 Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide 21 for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” 22 Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). Discovery should proceed 23 absent a “strong showing” to the contrary. Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 24 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997). The case law in this District makes clear that requests to stay 25 discovery may be granted when: (1) the underlying motion is potentially dispositive in scope and 26 effect; (2) the underlying motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court 27 1 As a result, Plaintiff’s pending motion for an extension of the joint proposed discovery 28 plan deadline (Docket No. 32) is DENIED as moot. 1} has taken a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the underlying motion and is convinced that the 2 plaintiff will be unable to prevail. Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 3} 2013). The Court is guided in its analysis by the objectives in Rule 1 to secure a just, speedy, and 4! inexpensive determination of cases. Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 602. 5 The Court is satisfied that a stay of discovery is appropriate in this case. As to the first two 6] requirements, the motion for judgment on the pleadings is potentially dispositive of this case and 1t can be decided without discovery. As to the third requirement, the undersigned’s evaluation of 8 the motion for judgment on the pleadings reveals that it is sufficiently meritorious to justify a stay 9] of discovery.2 Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to stay discovery (Docket No. 35) is 10] GRANTED? 11 In the event resolution of Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings does not result 12] in the termination of this case, an amended discovery plan or joint status report must be filed within 13] 14 days of the issuance of such order. 15 Dated: November 4, 2021

Nancy J Koppe 17 United States-Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 ? Conducting the preliminary peek puts the undersigned in an awkward position because the assigned district judge who will decide the motion for judgment on the pleadings may have a 23} different view of its merits. See Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 603. The undersigned’s “preliminary peak” at the merits of that motion is not intended to prejudice is outcome. See id. As a result, the 24 undersigned will not provide a lengthy discussion of the merits of the underlying motion in this instance. Nonetheless, the undersigned has carefully reviewed the arguments presented in the underlying motion and subsequent briefing. 26 > To be clear, the dispositive motion was filed by only Defendant City of Las Vegas, as was the motion to stay discovery. The Court grants the motion to stay discovery as to this 27 defendant only. If and when other defendants appear in this case, each defendant will be required to engage in discovery unless and until the Court issues an order staying discovery as to that 28] particular defendant.