Complot v. Rushmore Servicing LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 OLIVER COMPLOT, Case No. 2:24-cv-01918-JCM-NJK 7 Plaintiff(s), Order v. [Docket No. 49] 9] RUSHMORE SERVICING LLC et al., 10 Defendant(s). 1] Pending before the Court is Defendant’s unopposed motion to stay discovery pending 12] resolution of its motion to dismiss. Docket No. 49. 13 The parties held their Rule 26(f) conference more than six months ago on December 19, 14] 2024, Docket No. 20 at 1, at which time they were free to engage in discovery, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15} 26(d)(1). The pending motion to dismiss on which the current request relies was filed shortly 16] thereafter on January 7, 2025. See Docket No. 28. At this point, there are two months remaining 17] in the discovery period. See Docket No. 41. 18 While the instant motion correctly addresses the case law employing the preliminary peek 19} framework, it does not also address the cases finding it contrary to the objectives in Rule 1 to stay 20] discovery in the twilight of the discovery period. See, e.g., JoshCo Tech., LLC v. MJJ&L Holdings, 21} LLC, 2020 WL 8254262, at *1-2 (D. Nev. Sept. 2, 2020). 22 Accordingly, the motion to stay discovery is DENIED without prejudice. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: June 27, 2025

Nancy J. Koppe 26 United States Magistrate Judge 27 28