Brandon v. Wright Medical Technologies, Inc.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 14, 2021
• Docket: 2:20-cv-01422
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 CHERYL C. BRANDON, 7 Case No.: 2:20-cv-01422-KJD-NJK Plaintiff, 8 ORDER v. 9 [Docket No. 23] WRIGHT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, 10 INC., 11 Defendant. 12 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to stay discovery. Docket No. 23. The 13 Court has considered Defendant’s motion and Plaintiff’s response. Docket Nos. 23, 25. No reply 14 was filed, and the time to do so has now passed. See Docket. The motion is properly resolved 15 without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. 16 Courts have 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, 600 (D. Nev. 2011). In deciding whether to grant a 20 stay of discovery, the Court is guided by the objectives of Rule 1 to ensure a just, speedy, and 21 inexpensive determination of every action.1 Id. at 602–03. 22 Motions to stay discovery pending resolution of a dispositive motion may be granted when: 23 (1) the pending motion is potentially dispositive; (2) the potentially dispositive motion can be 24 decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a “preliminary peek” at the 25 merits of the potentially dispositive motion to evaluate the likelihood of dismissal.2 See Kor Media 26 1 Unless otherwise noted, references to “Rules” refer to the Federal Rules of Civil 27 Procedure. 28 2 Conducting the “preliminary peek” puts the undersigned in an awkward position because the assigned district judge who will decide the motion to dismiss may have a different view of its Group, LLC vs. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013). A pending motion challenging 2|| personal jurisdiction “strongly favors a stay, or at minimum, limitations on discovery until the question of jurisdiction is resolved” because such a motion presents a “critical preliminary question.” Kabo Tools Co. v. Porauto Indus. Co., Ltd., 2013 WL 5947138, at *2 (D. Nev. Oct. 5] 31, 2013). The party seeking to stay discovery pending resolution of a potentially dispositive motion bears the burden of establishing that discovery should be stayed. /d., at *1. 7 Applying these standards to Defendant’s pending motion to dismiss for lack of personal 8|| jurisdiction, the Court finds that a stay of discovery is appropriate. 9 Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to stay discovery, Docket No. 23, is hereby GRANTED. 10] In the event resolution of the motion to dismiss does not result in termination of this case, the 11} parties shall file a joint proposed discovery plan no later than seven days after the entry of the 12|| order on the motion to dismiss. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: January 14, 2021 15 fo AS ea. Nancy J. Reppe 16 United 3 e agistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26] merits. See Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 603. The undersigned’s “preliminary peek” at the merits of that motion is not intended to prejudice its outcome. See id. As a result, the undersigned will not 27|| provide a lengthy discussion of the merits of the pending motion to dismiss in this instance. Nonetheless, the undersigned has carefully reviewed the arguments presented in the motion to 28] dismiss and subsequent briefing.