Christine Greve v. Public Utilities Commission of Nevada, et al

D. Nevada

Christine Greve v. Public Utilities Commission of Nevada, et al

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided October 29, 2025·No. 2:25-cv-01103·Unknown

Opinion

Christine Greve, Case No. 2:25-cv-01103-APG-NJK Plaintiff, Order v. [Docket No. 26] Public Utilities Commission of Nevada, et al, Defendants. Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulation to stay discovery. Docket No. 26. “The decision to stay discovery is entrusted to the ‘wide discretion’ of the district court.” Flynn v. Nevada, 345 F.R.D. 338, 343 (D.Nev. Jan. 3, 2024) (citing Little v. City of Seattle¸ 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988)). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D.Nev. 2011). Discovery should proceed absent a “strong showing” to the contrary. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D.Nev. 1997). That discovery may involve some inconvenience and expense is insufficient to justify a stay of discovery. Twin City Fire Insurance Co. v. Employers Ins. Of Wausau, 124 F.R.D. 652, 653 (D.Nev. 1989). Instead, a sufficient showing of good cause to stay all discovery exists when: (1) the pending motion is potentially dispositive in scope and effect; (2) the potentially dispositive motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the potentially dispositive motion and is convinced that the plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief. Flynn, 345 F.R.D. at 352; Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D.Nev. 2013). The Court is guided in its analysis by the objectives in Rule 1 to secure a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of cases. Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 602. ] The parties fail to address the relevant standards for staying discovery pending the resolution of a dispositive motion. See Docket No. 26. Specifically, the parties fail to even mention, much less provide an analysis, regarding the required preliminary peek. Accordingly, the parties’ stipulation to stay discovery is DENIED. Docket No. 26. As the 5] Court previously ordered, the parties’ joint discovery plan is due no later than October 30, 2025. See Docket No. 25. Dated: October 29, 2025.

UNITED STA ES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Christine Greve, Case No. 2:25-cv-01103-APG-NJK Plaintiff, Order v. [Docket No. 26] Public Utilities Commission of Nevada, et al, Defendants. Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulation to stay discovery. Docket No. 26. “The decision to stay discovery is entrusted to the ‘wide discretion’ of the district court.” Flynn v. Nevada, 345 F.R.D. 338, 343 (D.Nev. Jan. 3, 2024) (citing Little v. City of Seattle¸ 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988)). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D.Nev. 2011). Discovery should proceed absent a “strong showing” to the contrary. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D.Nev. 1997). That discovery may involve some inconvenience and expense is insufficient to justify a stay of discovery. Twin City Fire Insurance Co. v. Employers Ins. Of Wausau, 124 F.R.D. 652, 653 (D.Nev. 1989). Instead, a sufficient showing of good cause to stay all discovery exists when: (1) the pending motion is potentially dispositive in scope and effect; (2) the potentially dispositive motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the potentially dispositive motion and is convinced that the plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief. Flynn, 345 F.R.D. at 352; Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D.Nev. 2013). The Court is guided in its analysis by the objectives in Rule 1 to secure a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of cases. Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 602. ] The parties fail to address the relevant standards for staying discovery pending the resolution of a dispositive motion. See Docket No. 26. Specifically, the parties fail to even mention, much less provide an analysis, regarding the required preliminary peek. Accordingly, the parties’ stipulation to stay discovery is DENIED. Docket No. 26. As the 5] Court previously ordered, the parties’ joint discovery plan is due no later than October 30, 2025. See Docket No. 25. Dated: October 29, 2025.

UNITED STA ES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Christine Greve v. Public Utilities Commission of Nevada, et al, (D. Nev. 2025).

Pincite

Christine Greve v. Public Utilities Commission of Nevada, et al (Christine Greve v. Public Utilities Commission of Nevada, et al) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related