Gaia Ethnobotanical, LLC v. T1 Payments, LLC

Opinion

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6

Case No. 2:22-cv-01046-CDS-NJK 8 Plaintiff(s), Order 9 v. [Docket No. 45] 10 T1 PAYMENTS LLC, et al., 11 Defendant(s). 12 In the quest to appropriately seek a stay of discovery in this case, the Sisyphean boulder 13 rolls down the hill once again. 14 The Court has already identified in this case the means and standards for seeking a stay of 15 discovery. Docket No. 43 at 1 (citing Kor Media Grp., LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. 16 Nev. 2013) as providing the standards for seeking a stay of discovery pending resolution of Rule 17 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and citing Hologram USA, Inc. v. Pulse Evolution Corp., 2015 WL 18 1600768, at *1 (D. Nev. Apr. 8, 2015) as providing the standards for seeking a stay of discovery 19 pending resolution of Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss). And, yet, the parties filed a joint motion 20 to stay discovery addressing a different analysis. See Docket No. 45.1 21 Because that joint motion does not address the governing standards established in this 22 District, it is DENIED without prejudice. Any renewed request must be filed by October 14, 2022, 23

24 1 The joint motion purports to address the “U.S. District Court of Nevada’s seven-prong test.” Docket No. 45 at 6. Nowhere in the joint motion do the parties cite cases from this District 25 applying this “seven-prong test.” Indeed, this “seven-prong test” has been identified and rejected by judges in this District. See, e.g., Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 602-03 (D. Nev. 26 2011) (Leen, J.) (identifying the seven-prong test, but then proceeding to reject it because “[t]his court is persuaded that the standard enunciated by Judges Reed and Hunt in Twin City and 27 Turner should apply in evaluating whether a stay of discovery is appropriate while a dispositive motion is pending”); Ministerio Roca Solida v. U.S. Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, 288 F.R.D. 500, 504 28 (D. Nev. 2013) (Ferenbach, J.) (same). 1} and must address the governing standards. Particularly given the guidance provided, the Court 2|| will not consider these requests ad infinitum. This will be the final opportunity to seek a stay of discovery pending the dispositive motions. 4 The Court again cautions counsel that they must promptly familiarize themselves with the practices of this District. See also Docket No. 43 at 2 n.3. 7 Dated: October 11, 2022 8 A x — Nancy J. 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28