Jackson v. Nevada Department of Corrections

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * *

4 ROBERT JACKSON, Case No. 2:21-cv-01772-JAD-EJY

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 42). The Court 11 reviewed Defendants’ Motion, Plaintiff’s Opposition (ECF No. 44), and Defendants’ Reply. ECF 12 No. 46. 13 I. Background 14 This dispute arises out of Plaintiff’s retaliation claims that survived screening. Defendants 15 argue Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, which he must do before he may bring 16 his retaliation claim to court. ECF No. 42 at 3-4. Defendants say Plaintiff’s claims will be dismissed 17 once the Court considers their Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, which, in turn, supports 18 staying discovery in this matter. Id. at 2. Plaintiff responds that Defendants filed a dispositive 19 motion that can be decided without discovery. ECF No. 44 at 3. However, Plaintiff says he has 20 exhausted all of his administrative remedies. Id. at 3-5. In its Reply, Defendants argue Plaintiff did 21 not take administrative action—he failed to grieve—conduct engaged in by Corrections Officer 22 Roop, which is alleged to have occurred on October 4, 2019. ECF No. 46 at 4. Defendants also 23 contend that nowhere in Plaintiff’s “disciplinary appear … [did] he mention his 2016 inadequate 24 nutrition lawsuit.” Id. Defendants demonstrate that certain discovery was completed in this matter, 25 including Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents that were 26 provided on June 8, 2023 and to which Plaintiff has not addressed as insufficient or incomplete. Id. 27 at 5. 1 II. Discussion 2 Courts have broad discretion to control discovery. Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 3 (9th Cir. 1988). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket stays 4 of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 5 F.R.D. 597, 600 (D. Nev. 2011). A pending dispositive motion “is not ordinarily a situation that in 6 and of itself would warrant a stay of discovery.” Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 7 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997) (quotation omitted). Nor does the fact that “discovery may involve 8 some inconvenience and expense” automatically lead to a stay of discovery. Id. 9 When deciding whether to grant a discovery stay, courts are often guided by Rule 1 of the 10 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requiring the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every 11 action. Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 602-03. Generally, a motion to stay discovery pending resolution 12 of other motions may be granted when: (1) the pending motion is potentially dispositive; (2) the 13 potentially dispositive motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court has 14 taken a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the potentially dispositive motion to evaluate the 15 likelihood of dismissal. Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013). The 16 party seeking a discovery stay bears the burden of establishing the stay is warranted. Kabo Tools 17 Co. v. Porauto Indus. Co., Ltd., 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 156928, at *1 (D. Nev. Oct. 31, 2013) (citing 18 Holiday Sys., Int’l of Nev. v. Vivarelli, Scharwz, and Assocs., 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 125542, at *5 19 (D. Nev. Sept. 5, 2012)). 20 Here, there is no doubt that Defendants’ pending Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is 21 potentially dispositive and that the Motion can be decided without additional discovery. The Court 22 took a preliminary peek at the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and finds it likely to lead to 23 dismissal of Plaintiff’s remaining claims. Further, and importantly, the Court finds a short stay of 24 discovery for purposes of allowing the Court to consider Defendants’ dispositive motion serves the 25 overriding policy stated in Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 26 27 1 III. Order 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF 3 No. 42) is GRANTED. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the Court’s Order regarding Defendants’ Motion for 5 Judgment on the Pleadings does not dispose of this case in its entirety, the parties must (1) meet and 6 confer within fourteen (14) days of the date of that Order to discuss and prepare a revised discovery 7 plan and scheduling order addressing all remaining discovery to be conducted, and (2) file a joint 8 proposed discovery plan and scheduling order addressing the remaining discovery to be conducted 9 no later than thirty (30) days of the Court’s Order. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Counsel for Defendants must initiate the process of setting 11 up the call with Plaintiff for purposes of complying with the terms of this Order. 12 DATED this 24th day of October, 2023. 13

14 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27