Jordan M. Hooge v. L. Michelle Sugerman, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: December 19, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00592
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Case No. 2:25-cv-00592-APG-NJK 4 JORDAN M. HOOGE, Order 5 Plaintiff, [Docket No. 48] 6 v.

7 L. MICHELLE SUGERMAN, et al.,

8 Defendants. 9 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to stay discovery or, in the alternative, to 10 extend discovery. Docket No. 48; see also Docket Nos. 15 (Defendants’ motion to dismiss), 34 11 (Defendants’ motion for leave to supplement motion to dismiss). Plaintiff filed a response. Docket 12 No. 53. Defendants filed a reply. Docket No. 54. The motion is properly resolved without a 13 hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. 14 I. BACKGROUND 15 On May 21, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Docket No. 15. On October 8, 16 2025, Defendants filed a motion for leave to supplement their motion to dismiss. Docket No. 34. 17 On November 19, 2025, Defendants filed an emergency motion to stay discovery. Docket No. 40. 18 The Court denied that motion without prejudice. Docket No. 43. On November 26, 2025, 19 Defendants filed a stipulation for substitution of counsel and the instant motion to stay discovery 20 or, in the alternative, to extend discovery. Docket Nos. 47, 48. The Court granted the stipulation 21 for substitution of counsel. Docket No. 52. The Court now considers the motion to stay discovery 22 and the alternative request to extend discovery in turn. Docket No. 48. 23 II. MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY 24 The Court has broad discretionary power to control discovery. See, e.g., Little v. City of 25 Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide 26 for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” 27 Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). The party seeking to avoid 28 discovery bears the burden of persuasion. Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 1 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997). Discovery may be stayed when: (1) there is a pending motion 2 that is potentially dispositive in nature and scope; (2) the potentially dispositive motion can be 3 decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a “preliminary peek” at the 4 merits of the potentially dispositive motion and finds the motion sufficiently meritorious to warrant 5 a stay. See Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013). The Court is 6 guided in its analysis by the objectives in Rule 1 to secure a just, speedy, and inexpensive 7 determination of cases. See Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 602-03. 8 The circumstances of this case do not warrant a stay of discovery at this late stage in the 9 discovery period. The underlying motion to dismiss was filed on May 21, 2025, and has been 10 briefed since August 1, 2025. See Docket Nos. 15, 18, 26. Notwithstanding the pendency of that 11 motion, the moving Defendants did not seek to stay discovery at that time.1 The moving 12 Defendants filed the pending motion to stay discovery on November 26, 2025, just three weeks 13 before the discovery cutoff. See Docket Nos. 48, 37 (order extending discovery cutoff to 14 December 17, 2025). The discovery period closed just five days after the instant motion was fully 15 briefed. See Docket No. 54 (Defendants’ reply filed on December 12, 2025). Given these 16 circumstances, Plaintiff asserts that “[a] stay would not be just speedy, or inexpensive” and “would 17 contradict the prime directive of [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1].” Docket No. 53 at 3. 18 The Court agrees with Plaintiff that a stay of discovery is not warranted here. The moving 19 Defendants did not properly seek to stay their discovery obligations and their reply brief to the 20 motion to stay discovery was filed with just five days left in the discovery period. Given the 21 circumstances, it does not advance the objectives in Rule 1 to stay discovery at this late juncture. 22 E.g., JoshCo Tech, LLC v. MJJ&L Holdings, LLC, No. 2:20-CV-00428-APG-NJK, 2020 WL 23 8254262, at *2 (D. Nev. Sept. 2, 2020). 24 III. MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY 25 In the alternative, Defendants request that the Court extend discovery. Docket No. 48. 26 Defendants submit that the appearance of new counsel in this matter and newly substituted counsel 27 1 Defendants later filed an emergency motion to stay discovery on November 19, 2025. 28 Docket No. 40. 1} needing additional time to familiarize themselves with this litigation are factors that the Court 2|| should consider in determining whether good cause exists. See id. at 10-11. Further, Defendants 3] assert that substitution of counsel was made in order to protect their interests, and they attached a declaration of their insurance carrier’s claim director to attest to the reason behind the decision to 5] substitute counsel. See id. at 11; see also Docket No. 48-3. Additionally, Defendants seek to reopen the deadline to file initial expert disclosures. See Docket No. 48 at 11. Plaintiff opposes 7| both requests. See Docket No. 53. 8 First, as Plaintiff points out, Defendants incorrectly assert only the good cause standard to 9] reopen the expert witness deadline, when both good cause and excusable neglect must be shown 10} in order to reopen an expired deadline. See Docket No. 53 at 3; see also LR IA 6-1 (“A request 11] made after the expiration of the specified period will not be granted unless the movant or attorney demonstrates that the failure to file the motion before the deadline expired was the result of excusable neglect”); see also LR 26-3; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). The deadline for initial 14] expert disclosures expired prior to the instant motion’s filing. See Docket No. 27 at | (setting a 15] September 18, 2025, deadline for initial expert disclosures). Therefore, the instant request fails to 16]| address the appropriate standard. 17 Second, Defendants fail to comply with the requirements of Local Rule 26-3 for motions 18] to extend time. The instant motion fails to include a statement specifying the discovery completed, 19] a specific description of the discovery that remains to be completed, and a proposed schedule for 20] completing all remaining discovery. See LR 26-3(a)-(d). CONCLUSION 22 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to stay discovery. Docket No. 48. 23] Further, the Court DENIES Defendants’ alternative request to extend discovery. Docket No. 48. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: December 19, 2025 a So Nancy J. Koppe* 27 United States Magistrate Judge