GW Grundbesitz AG v. Gunn

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: February 28, 2022
• Docket: 2:21-cv-02074
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8

9 GW GRUNDBESITZ AG, Case No. 2:21-cv-02074-JCM-NJK 10 Plaintiff, Order 11 v. [Docket No. 9] 12 LEZLIE GUNN, 13 Defendant. 14 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to stay discovery pending resolution of 15 her motion to dismiss. Docket No. 9; see also Docket No. 7 (motion to dismiss). Plaintiff filed a 16 response in opposition. Docket No. 12. Defendant filed a reply. Docket No. 16. The motion is 17 properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons discussed below, the 18 motion to stay discovery is DENIED. 19 The Court has broad discretionary power to control discovery. See, e.g., Little v. City of 20 Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide 21 for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” 22 Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). Discovery should proceed 23 absent a “strong showing” to the contrary. Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 24 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997). The case law in this District makes clear that requests to stay 25 discovery may be granted when: (1) the underlying motion is potentially dispositive in scope and 26 effect; (2) the underlying motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court 27 has taken a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the underlying motion and is convinced that the 28 plaintiff will be unable to prevail. Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 1] 2013). The Court is guided in its analysis by the objectives in Rule 1 to secure a just, speedy, and 2|| inexpensive determination of cases. Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 602. 3 The Court finds that a stay of discovery is not appropriate in this case. The Court has taken 4| a preliminary peek at the motion to dismiss and is not convinced that it will be granted.' It bears 5] repeating that the filing of a non-frivolous dispositive motion, standing alone, is simply not enough to warrant staying discovery. See, e.g., Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 603. Instead, the Court must be 7| “convinced” that the dispositive motion will be granted. See, e.g., id. “That standard is not easily met.” Kor Media, 294 F.R.D. at 583. “[T]here must be no question in the court’s mind that the dispositive motion will prevail, and therefore, discovery is a waste of effort.” Jd. (quoting Trazska 10} v. Int’] Game Tech., 2011 WL 1233298, *3 (D. Nev. Mar. 29, 2011)) (emphasis in original). The 11] Court requires this robust showing that the dispositive motion will succeed because applying a 12} lower standard would likely result in unnecessary delay in many cases. /d. (quoting Trazska, 2011 13] WL 1233298, at *4). 14 Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to stay discovery, Docket No. 9, is DENIED. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: February 28, 2022 17 □ nie ——-, Nancy J..Koppe, _ 18 United StatesMagistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ' Conducting the preliminary peek puts the undersigned in an awkward position because the assigned district judge who will decide the motion to compel 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 that motion is not intended to prejudice its outcome. See id. As a result, the undersigned will not 27| 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 motion to 28] dismiss and subsequent briefing.