1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 RAFFORD BROADNAX, an individual, 4 Case No. 2:25-CV-00113-JAD-MDC Plaintiff(s), 5 vs. ORDER REGARDING PENDING MOTIONS 6 UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware 7 Company; DARA KHOSROWSHAHI; TONY WEST; PRASHANTH MAHENDRA-RAJAH; 8 UBER USA, LLC, a foreign Company; BRIAN 9 L. KUNTZ; MICHELLE G. PARKER; RASIER, LLC, a Delaware Company; DOES 1 10 through 12, inclusive; and ROE BUSINESS ENTITIES I through X, inclusive, 11 Defendants., 12 Defendant(s). 13 The Court has reviewed the motions and related briefs below. For good cause and the reasons set 14 forth in this Order: 1). Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 25) is GRANTED. 15 2). Plaintiff’s Motion for Production of Documents (ECF No. 15) is DENIED. 3). Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (ECF NO. 26) is DENIED. 16 4). Plaintiff’s Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 33) is DENIED as Moot. 17 5). Plaintiff’s Motions to Issue a Scheduling Order (ECF Nos. 41 and 47) are DENIED. 18 6). Plaintiff’s Motion for Status Conference (ECF No. 46) is DENIED. I. ANALYSIS 19 A. STAYING DISCOVERY IS APPROPRIATE 20 The Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 25) by defendants1 Uber Technologies, Inc., Uber USA, 21 LLC, and Rasier, LLC, seeks to stay discovery pending the resolution of their Motion to Compel 22 Arbitration (ECF No. 6) and of plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (ECF No. 5). Federal courts have the “power 23 24 25 1 The other defendants, Dara Khosrowshahi, Tony West, Prashanth Mahendra-Rajah, Brian L. Kuntz, and Michelle G. Parker, were voluntarily dismissed from the action on April 14, 2025. ECF No. 40. 1 to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the 2 causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. 3 N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). “The district court has wide discretion in controlling discovery[.]” 4 Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011) (citing Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 5 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988)). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket 6 stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” Erwine v. United States, No. 3:24- 7 CV-00045-MMD-CSD, 2024 WL 4029202, at *2 (D. Nev. Sept. 3, 2024), reconsideration denied, No. 8 3:24-CV-00045-MMD-CSD, 2024 WL 4707934 (D. Nev. Nov. 7, 2024)(quoting Kor Media Group, LLC 9 v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013) (citation omitted. “Instead, a party seeking to stay discovery 10 carries the heavy burden of making a strong showing why discovery should be denied.” Id. When 11 considering a motion to stay discovery while a dispositive motion is pending, “this court considers the 12 goal of Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which directs that the Rules shall ‘be construed and 13 administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.’” Tradebay, 278 14 F.R.D. at 602 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 1). Thus, the Court may consider staying discovery pursuant to its 15 inherent powers and discretion, together with the goals pronounced by Rule 1. 16 This Court has previously adapted the pragmatic approach when considering whether to stay 17 discovery pending the adjudication of dispositive motions. Under the pragmatic approach, the Court 18 considers whether (1) the dispositive motions can be decided without further discovery; and (2) good 19 cause exists to stay discovery. Aristocrat Techs., Inc. v. Light & Wonder, Inc., No. 2:24-CV-00382- 20 GMN-MDC, 2024 WL 2302151, at *1 (D. Nev. May 21, 2024)(citing Schrader v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, 21 No. 2:19-cv-02159-JCM-BNW, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198974, at *14 (D. Nev. Oct. 14, 2021). 22 Staying discovery in the matter is appropriate under the circumstances. Defendants assert that 23 discovery is not needed to determine defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration (ECF No. 6) and 24 plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (ECF No. 5), which plaintiff does not dispute. See ECF Nos. 25 and 26. 25 There is also good cause to stay discovery. The good cause element under the pragmatic approach 1 is sufficiently broad to allow a court to operate within its discretion and the objectives of Fed. R. Civ. P. 2 1. Thus, good cause exists where a staying discovery secures “the just, speedy, and inexpensive 3 determination” of the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.; Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 603 (D. 4 Nev. 2011) (“[T]his court's role is to evaluate the propriety of an order staying or limiting discovery with 5 the goal of accomplishing the objectives of Rule 1.”). See also Schrader, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198974, 6 *12 (good cause may be found where a movant seeks to stay discovery to prevent the undue burden or 7 expense). Staying discovery under the circumstances of this case furthers the goals of Rule 1. For 8 example, if defendants’ Discovery Motion to Compel Arbitration (ECF No. 6) is granted, the scope of 9 discovery in arbitration is generally much different than in court proceedings. See Schoenduve Corp. v. 10 Lucent Techs., Inc., 442 F.3d 727, 731 (9th Cir. 2006) (“The strict procedural requirements that govern 11 litigation in federal courts do not apply to arbitration. Arbitration offers flexibility, an expeditious result, 12 and is relatively inexpensive when compared to litigation.”) (citation omitted). 13 Therefore, good cause exists to stay discovery. 14 B. DISPOSITION OF THE OTHER MOTIONS 15 Because the Court grants defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 25), the Court primarily 16 denies plaintiff’s motions (ECF Nos. 15, 26, 33, 41, 46, and 47) as moot. The Court notes, however, that 17 plaintiff failed to comply with Local Rules LR IA 1-3(f); LR 26-1; and LR 26-6, and the Court’s 18 02/20/2025 Standing Order (ECF No. 22). Foremost, it is plaintiff’s obligation to schedule and conduct 19 the initial conference under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), and then for the parties to file a joint stipulated discovery 20 plan and scheduling order. LR 26-1 states, in relevant part: “The pro se plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney 21 must initiate the scheduling of the conference required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) to be held within 30 days 22 after the first defendant answers or otherwise appears.” Id. 23 Federal Civil Procedure Rule 26(d)(1) further provides that “a party may not seek discovery from 24 any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f)….” Id. Next, Local Rules IA 1- 25 3(f) and LR 26-6, and the Court’s 02/20/2025 Standing Order (ECF No. 22) require a party to meet and 1 confer and to follow very explicit procedures in raising discovery disputes to the Court, which plaintiff 2 failed to do. While the Court understands that plaintiff is proceeding without an attorney (i.e., “pro se”), 3 pro se litigants must comply with the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 RAFFORD BROADNAX, an individual, 4 Case No. 2:25-CV-00113-JAD-MDC Plaintiff(s), 5 vs. ORDER REGARDING PENDING MOTIONS 6 UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware 7 Company; DARA KHOSROWSHAHI; TONY WEST; PRASHANTH MAHENDRA-RAJAH; 8 UBER USA, LLC, a foreign Company; BRIAN 9 L. KUNTZ; MICHELLE G. PARKER; RASIER, LLC, a Delaware Company; DOES 1 10 through 12, inclusive; and ROE BUSINESS ENTITIES I through X, inclusive, 11 Defendants., 12 Defendant(s). 13 The Court has reviewed the motions and related briefs below. For good cause and the reasons set 14 forth in this Order: 1). Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 25) is GRANTED. 15 2). Plaintiff’s Motion for Production of Documents (ECF No. 15) is DENIED. 3). Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (ECF NO. 26) is DENIED. 16 4). Plaintiff’s Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 33) is DENIED as Moot. 17 5). Plaintiff’s Motions to Issue a Scheduling Order (ECF Nos. 41 and 47) are DENIED. 18 6). Plaintiff’s Motion for Status Conference (ECF No. 46) is DENIED. I. ANALYSIS 19 A. STAYING DISCOVERY IS APPROPRIATE 20 The Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 25) by defendants1 Uber Technologies, Inc., Uber USA, 21 LLC, and Rasier, LLC, seeks to stay discovery pending the resolution of their Motion to Compel 22 Arbitration (ECF No. 6) and of plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (ECF No. 5). Federal courts have the “power 23 24 25 1 The other defendants, Dara Khosrowshahi, Tony West, Prashanth Mahendra-Rajah, Brian L. Kuntz, and Michelle G. Parker, were voluntarily dismissed from the action on April 14, 2025. ECF No. 40. 1 to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the 2 causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. 3 N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). “The district court has wide discretion in controlling discovery[.]” 4 Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011) (citing Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 5 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988)). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket 6 stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” Erwine v. United States, No. 3:24- 7 CV-00045-MMD-CSD, 2024 WL 4029202, at *2 (D. Nev. Sept. 3, 2024), reconsideration denied, No. 8 3:24-CV-00045-MMD-CSD, 2024 WL 4707934 (D. Nev. Nov. 7, 2024)(quoting Kor Media Group, LLC 9 v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013) (citation omitted. “Instead, a party seeking to stay discovery 10 carries the heavy burden of making a strong showing why discovery should be denied.” Id. When 11 considering a motion to stay discovery while a dispositive motion is pending, “this court considers the 12 goal of Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which directs that the Rules shall ‘be construed and 13 administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.’” Tradebay, 278 14 F.R.D. at 602 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 1). Thus, the Court may consider staying discovery pursuant to its 15 inherent powers and discretion, together with the goals pronounced by Rule 1. 16 This Court has previously adapted the pragmatic approach when considering whether to stay 17 discovery pending the adjudication of dispositive motions. Under the pragmatic approach, the Court 18 considers whether (1) the dispositive motions can be decided without further discovery; and (2) good 19 cause exists to stay discovery. Aristocrat Techs., Inc. v. Light & Wonder, Inc., No. 2:24-CV-00382- 20 GMN-MDC, 2024 WL 2302151, at *1 (D. Nev. May 21, 2024)(citing Schrader v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, 21 No. 2:19-cv-02159-JCM-BNW, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198974, at *14 (D. Nev. Oct. 14, 2021). 22 Staying discovery in the matter is appropriate under the circumstances. Defendants assert that 23 discovery is not needed to determine defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration (ECF No. 6) and 24 plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (ECF No. 5), which plaintiff does not dispute. See ECF Nos. 25 and 26. 25 There is also good cause to stay discovery. The good cause element under the pragmatic approach 1 is sufficiently broad to allow a court to operate within its discretion and the objectives of Fed. R. Civ. P. 2 1. Thus, good cause exists where a staying discovery secures “the just, speedy, and inexpensive 3 determination” of the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.; Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 603 (D. 4 Nev. 2011) (“[T]his court's role is to evaluate the propriety of an order staying or limiting discovery with 5 the goal of accomplishing the objectives of Rule 1.”). See also Schrader, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198974, 6 *12 (good cause may be found where a movant seeks to stay discovery to prevent the undue burden or 7 expense). Staying discovery under the circumstances of this case furthers the goals of Rule 1. For 8 example, if defendants’ Discovery Motion to Compel Arbitration (ECF No. 6) is granted, the scope of 9 discovery in arbitration is generally much different than in court proceedings. See Schoenduve Corp. v. 10 Lucent Techs., Inc., 442 F.3d 727, 731 (9th Cir. 2006) (“The strict procedural requirements that govern 11 litigation in federal courts do not apply to arbitration. Arbitration offers flexibility, an expeditious result, 12 and is relatively inexpensive when compared to litigation.”) (citation omitted). 13 Therefore, good cause exists to stay discovery. 14 B. DISPOSITION OF THE OTHER MOTIONS 15 Because the Court grants defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 25), the Court primarily 16 denies plaintiff’s motions (ECF Nos. 15, 26, 33, 41, 46, and 47) as moot. The Court notes, however, that 17 plaintiff failed to comply with Local Rules LR IA 1-3(f); LR 26-1; and LR 26-6, and the Court’s 18 02/20/2025 Standing Order (ECF No. 22). Foremost, it is plaintiff’s obligation to schedule and conduct 19 the initial conference under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), and then for the parties to file a joint stipulated discovery 20 plan and scheduling order. LR 26-1 states, in relevant part: “The pro se plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney 21 must initiate the scheduling of the conference required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) to be held within 30 days 22 after the first defendant answers or otherwise appears.” Id. 23 Federal Civil Procedure Rule 26(d)(1) further provides that “a party may not seek discovery from 24 any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f)….” Id. Next, Local Rules IA 1- 25 3(f) and LR 26-6, and the Court’s 02/20/2025 Standing Order (ECF No. 22) require a party to meet and 1 confer and to follow very explicit procedures in raising discovery disputes to the Court, which plaintiff 2 failed to do. While the Court understands that plaintiff is proceeding without an attorney (i.e., “pro se”), 3 pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the court 4 in which litigation is proceeding. See Carter v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th 5 Cir. 1986) (pro se litigants expected to abide by the rules of the court in which litigation proceeds); King 6 v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir. 7 1986) ("pro se litigants in the ordinary civil case should not be treated more favorable than parties with 8 attorneys of record"). 9 Defendants, however, are not blameless. The plaintiff notes that he attempted to hold a Rule 26(f) 10 conference but that defendants refused such a meeting, taking the position that discovery should be 11 stayed. See ECF No. 33 The parties are reminded of their obligations to cooperate and to meet and 12 confer in good faith to discuss pre-trial disputes. LR IA 1-3(f) provides, in relevant part: “[T] ‘meet and 13 confer’ means to communicate directly and discuss in good faith the issues required under the particular 14 rule or court order. This requirement is reciprocal and applies to all participants.” Id. In doing so, the 15 parties must participate in all required conferences, exchange reasonable compromise proposals, and 16 consider them in good faith. That dispositive motions may have been filed or may be filed is not grounds 17 to refuse discovery or to participate in discovery required conferences. See Erwine, 2024 WL 4029202, 18 at *2 (there is no automatic stay of discovery just because a potentially dispositive motion is pending.). 19 Failure to engage in meaningful meet and confer efforts, other court-required conferences, or reasonably 20 and professionally cooperate will result in sanctions. 21 Finally, plaintiff is cautioned against filing repetitive motions as they unduly burden the Court and 22 staff, delay proceedings, and are unreasonable. Here, plaintiff improperly filed repetitive Motions to 23 Issue a Scheduling Order (ECF Nos. 41 and 47). 24 // 25 // I. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
5 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that:
3 1). Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 25) is GRANTED. 4 2). Plaintiff's Motion for Production of Documents (ECF No. 15) is DENIED. 5 3). Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (ECF NO. 26) is DENIED. 6 4). Plaintiff's Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 33) is 7 DENIED as Moot. 8 5). Plaintiff's Motions to Issue a Scheduling Order (ECF Nos. 41 and 47) are ° DENIED. 6. Plaintiff's Motion for Status Conference (ECF No. 46) is DENIED. 11 J29 - DATED: May 13, 2025. fo Mion. Maxipimian > D. Coaivillier TT 14 LY United L/ e Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25