Horner v. Sisolak

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: April 6, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00012
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6

7 STEPHEN J. HORNER, Case No. 2:22-cv-00012-JAD-NJK 8 Plaintiff, Order 9 v. [Docket No. 15] 10 STEVE SISOLAK, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to stay discovery pending resolution of its 13 motion to dismiss. Docket No. 15; see also Docket No. 12 (motion to dismiss). Plaintiff filed a 14 response in opposition. Docket No. 19. Defendants filed a reply. Docket No. 22. The motion to 15 stay discovery is properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons 16 discussed below, the motion to stay discovery is 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). Discovery should proceed 21 absent a “strong showing” to the contrary. Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 22 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997). The case law in this District makes clear that requests to stay 23 discovery may be granted when: (1) the underlying motion is potentially dispositive in scope and 24 effect; (2) the underlying motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court 25 has taken a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the underlying motion and is convinced that the 26 plaintiff will be unable to prevail. Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 27 2013). The Court is guided in its analysis by the objectives in Rule 1 to secure a just, speedy, and 28 inexpensive determination of cases. Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 602. ] The Court is satisfied that a stay of discovery is appropriate in this case. As to the first two 2|| requirements, the motion to dismiss is potentially dispositive of this case and it can be decided without discovery. As to the third requirement, the undersigned’s evaluation of the motion to 4|| dismiss reveals that it is sufficiently meritorious to justify a stay of discovery.' 5 Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to stay discovery, Docket No. 15, is GRANTED. In the 6] event resolution of Defendants’ motion to dismiss does not result in the termination of this case, the parties must file a joint proposed discovery plan no later than fourteen days after the entry of 8|| the order resolving the motion to dismiss. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: April 6, 2022 Nancy J. Koppe* 12 United States. Magistrate Judge 13 □

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 who will decide the motion to dismiss 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.