IGT, a Nevada Corporation v. Acres

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: June 29, 2023
• Docket: 2:22-cv-02134
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 IGT, a Nevada Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02134-RFB-EJY

5 Plaintiffs,

6 v. ORDER

7 JOHN F. ACRES,

8 Defendant.

9 10 On March 27, 2023 Defendant filed his Motion for Order to Stay … Discovery Pending 11 Decision on Various Motions. ECF No. 31. A Response and Reply were filed thereafter. ECF Nos. 12 36, 44. A proposed discovery plan and scheduling order was also submitted by the parties. ECF 13 No. 34. 14 Defendant contends that pending motions (including a motion to consolidate, motion to 15 remand, motion to amend complaint, motion to dismiss counterclaims, motion to strike affirmative 16 defenses, and motion for judgment on the pleadings) are such that discovery would be inefficient if 17 conducted before these motions are decided. On May 30, 2023, District Judge Robert F. Boulware 18 held a hearing on all pending motions. The Court reviewed the transcript. 19 Plaintiffs differentiate this case from the case pending before District Judge Gloria M. 20 Navarro (Case No. 21-cv-01962), which Plaintiffs say involves only patent law. This earlier filed 21 case is stayed pending reexamination of IGT’s patents by the USPTO. Plaintiffs argue the instant 22 matter was removed by Defendant Acres based on a conclusory argument that the 2021 case and this 23 case share a common nucleus of facts. 24 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic stays of litigation when 25 potentially dispositive motions are pending. Skellerup Indus. Ltd. v. City of L.A., 163 F.R.D. 598, 26 600-01 (C.D. Cal 1995). A dispositive motion is not a situation that ordinarily warrants a stay of 27 discovery. Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997) 1 serve the interests of judicial economy and efficiency. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 2 (1936) (“[t]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control 3 the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, 4 and for litigants”). For example, a trial court may find it efficient for its own docket and the fairest 5 course for the parties to enter a stay of an action pending resolution of independent proceedings that 6 bear upon the case. Leyva v. Certified Grocers of California, Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979). 7 When reviewing a stay of discovery, the Ninth Circuit instructs the trial court to balance the 8 length of the requested stay against the strength of the justification given for it. Yong v. I.N.S., 208 9 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000). A party seeking a stay of discovery carries the “heavy burden of 10 making a strong showing why discovery should be denied.” Turner, 175 F.R.D. at 556 (citing 11 Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975)). The fact that “discovery may 12 involve some inconvenience and expense” also does not normally warrant a stay of discovery. Id. 13 The status of this matter—that is, whether the Court has jurisdiction over the dispute 14 presented—was argued orally and is currently the subject of supplemental briefing. The Court 15 raised substantial concern over the jurisdictional issue presented. The preliminary issue of whether 16 the Court may exercise jurisdiction over this dispute is a common basis justifying a stay of discovery. 17 Twin City Fire Insurance v. Employers of Wausau, 124 F.R.D. 652, 653 (D. Nev. 1989). 18 The Court finds the numerous pending issues raised in motion practice, not the least of which 19 is a question of jurisdiction, supports a stay of discovery until such time as a determination regarding 20 jurisdiction is made. 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Order to Stay … 22 Discovery Pending Decision on Various Motions (ECF No. 31) is GRANTED. 23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the [Proposed] Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling 24 Order (ECF No. 34) is DENIED without prejudice. 25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if this matter is not remanded, the parties must file a status 26 report with the Court no later than ten (10) days after the order denying remand is issued. The status 27 report must identify what, if any, motions remain pending and whether the parties agree to 1 || discovery plan and scheduling order. If there is disagreement regarding discovery, the parties are 2 || present their respective positions in the status report. 3 Dated this 29th day of June, 2023.

5 . ELAYNA\W. YOU: 6 UNITEL_STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28