Bamforth v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7] JOHN BAMFORTE, etal Case No. 2:21-cv-00712-JAD-NJK Plaintiffs, 8 ORDER [Docket No. 27] STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE 10] INSURANCE COMPANY, 11 Defendant. 12 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulation to stay discovery. Docket No. 27. The 13] parties submit that good cause exists to stay discovery pending resolution of Defendant’s motion 14] to dismiss. /d. at 2; see also Docket No. 13 (motion to dismiss). A pending dispositive motion, standing alone, however, does not support a stay of discovery, and the parties fail to address the 16] appropriate standards. See Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). 17 Accordingly, the parties’ stipulation to stay discovery, Docket No. 27, is hereby DENIED 18] without prejudice. Any future request for a stay of discovery must address the proper standards. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: June 1, 2021 A. 21 7, x <— fo Nancy-J.. Keppe 22 United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Bamforth v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Bamforth v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.