Estrada v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6

7 ELIZABETH ESTRADA, Case No. 2:22-cv-01620-GMN-NJK

8 Plaintiff(s), Order

9 v. [Docket Nos. 39, 41]

10 SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING LLC,

11 Defendant(s). 12 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to stay discovery pending resolution of its 13 motion to dismiss. Docket No. 39.1 Plaintiff filed a response in opposition. Docket No. 50. 14 Defendants filed a reply. Docket No. 54. The motion is properly resolved without a hearing. See 15 Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons discussed more fully below, the motion to stay discovery is 16 GRANTED. 17 The Court has broad discretionary power to control discovery. See, e.g., Little v. City of 18 Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide 19 for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” 20 Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). The party seeking a stay of 21 discovery bears the burden of making a strong showing that discovery should be denied. Turner 22 Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997). Discovery may be stayed 23 when: (1) there is a pending motion that is potentially dispositive; (2) the potentially dispositive 24 motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a “preliminary 25 peek” at the merits of the underlying motion and is convinced that Plaintiff will be unable to state 26 a claim for relief. Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013). 27 1 The motion to dismiss has been fully briefed. Docket No. 20 (motion); Docket No. 42 28 (response); Docket No. 53 (reply). ] The Court agrees with Defendant that these elements are present here. The motion is 2|| potentially dispositive of the case and may be decided without discovery. Moreover, the Court is convinced by the arguments presented in the motion to dismiss that Plaintiff will be unable to state All a claim.’ 5 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to stay discovery pending resolution of 6] Defendant’s motion to dismiss. In the event the underlying motion to dismiss is not granted in 7|| full, a joint status report or joint discovery plan must be filed within 14 days of the resolution of 8|| the motion to dismiss. In light of that ruling, the Court also DENIES as moot the pending 9| discovery plan (Docket No. 41). 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: March 16, 2023 12 7 x ~ x. Nancy J..Koppe 13 United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ? Conducting the preliminary peek puts the undersigned in an awkward position because the assigned district judge will decide the motion to dismiss and may have a different view of its 26] merits. See Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 603. The undersigned’s “preliminary peek” at the merits of the motion to dismiss is not intended to prejudice its outcome. See id. Asa result, the undersigned 27| will not 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 underlying 28]| motion and subsequent briefing.