Blue v. Smith

Opinion

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6

7 HATTIE BLUE, et al., Case No.: 2:20-cv-00401-GMN-NJK 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER 9 v. (Docket No. 36) 10 PAMELA SMITH, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 Pending before the Court is the parties’ proposed discovery plan. Docket No. 36. In reality, 13 however, the parties request a stay of discovery pending resolution of Defendants’ motion to 14 dismiss. See id. at 3. As an initial matter, it is improper to seek a stay of discovery in a proposed 15 discovery plan; if parties seek to stay discovery, they must file a request to stay discovery. Cf. 16 Local Rule IC 2-2(b). Nonetheless, the Court will analyze this filing as a stipulation to stay 17 discovery. 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 mere fact that parties stipulate to a stay does not 20 limit the Court’s discretion to order a stay.” Estate of Evans v. Kinecta Fed. Credit Union, 2014 21 WL 12790972, at *1 (D. Nev. June 27, 2014). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not 22 provide for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is 23 pending.” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). Discovery should 24 proceed absent a “strong showing” to the contrary. See, e.g., Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. 25 Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997). 26 The case law in this District makes clear that requests to stay discovery may be granted 27 when: (1) the pending motion is potentially dispositive; (2) the potentially dispositive motion can 28 be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a “preliminary peek” at the 1 merits of the potentially dispositive motion and is convinced that the plaintiff will be unable to 2 state a claim for relief. See Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013).1 3 When stipulating to a stay of discovery, the parties have the burden to show that discovery should 4 be stayed. See Kabo Tools Co. v. Porauto Indus. Co., 2013 WL 5947138, at *1 (D. Nev. Oct. 31, 5 2013). 6 The Court finds that all the above standards are not met and therefore a stay of discovery 7 is inappropriate. The Court finds that Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Docket No. 25, is potentially 8 dispositive and can be decided without discovery. The Court is not convinced, however, that 9 Defendants’ motion to dismiss “will prevail, and therefore, discovery [would be] a waste of effort.” 10 Trazaska v. Int’l Game Tech., 2011 WL 1233298, at *3 (D. Nev. Mar. 29, 2011). 11 Accordingly, the Court DENIES the parties’ stipulation to stay discovery. Docket No. 36. 12 The parties must file a proposed discovery plan no later than July 6, 2020. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: July 1, 2020 15 ______________________________ Nancy J. Koppe 16 United States Magistrate Judge 17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 Conducting the preliminary peek puts the undersigned in an awkward position because 26 the assigned district judge who will decide the motion to dismiss 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 27 that motion is not intended to prejudice its outcome. See id. As a result, the undersigned will not discuss the merits of the pending motion to dismiss here. Still, the undersigned has carefully 28 reviewed the arguments in the motion to dismiss and later briefing.