Kneizys v. Federal Deposit Insurance Company

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 10, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-01499
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 STEVEN KNEIZYS, Case No. 2:19-cv-01499-GMN-DJA

7 Plaintiff,

8 v. ORDER

9 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CO., et al., 10 Defendants. 11 12 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 18), filed on 13 December 9, 2019. To date, no response has been filed. Defendants’ failure to file points and 14 authorities in response to the motion “constitutes a consent to the granting of the motion.” LR 7- 15 2(d). Moreover, the Court finds that Plaintiff has carried his burden to justify a stay of discovery. 16 Courts have broad discretionary power to control discovery. See, e.g., Little v. City of 17 Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir.1988). In deciding whether to grant a stay of discovery, the 18 Court is guided by the objectives of Rule 1 to ensure a just, speedy, and inexpensive 19 determination of every action. See Kidneigh v. Tournament One Corp., 2013 WL 1855764, at *2 20 (D. Nev. May 1, 2013). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or 21 blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” Tradebay, LLC v. 22 eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 600 (D. Nev. 2011). However, preliminary issues such as 23 jurisdiction, venue, or immunity are common situations that may justify a stay. See Twin City 24 Fire Ins. v. Employers of Wausau, 124 F.R.D. 653 (D. Nev. 1989); see also Kabo Tools Co. v. 25 Porauto Indus. Co., 2013 WL 5947138, at *1 (D. Nev. Oct. 31, 2013) (granting stay based on 26 alleged lack of personal jurisdiction); Ministerio Roca Solida v. U.S. Dep’t of Fish & Wildlife, 27 288 F.R.D. 500, 506 (D. Nev. 2013) (granting stay based in part on alleged lack of subject matter 1 be granted when: (1) the pending motion is potentially dispositive; (2) the potentially dispositive 2 motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a “preliminary 3 peek” at the merits of the potentially dispositive motion to evaluate the likelihood of dismissal. 4 See Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013). 5 A party seeking to stay discovery pending resolution of a potentially dispositive motion 6 bears the heavy burden of establishing that discovery should be stayed. See, e.g., Turner 7 Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997) (noting that a 8 stay of discovery may be appropriate where the complaint was “utterly frivolous, or filed merely 9 for settlement value.”); Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975). When 10 deciding whether to issue a stay, a court must take a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the 11 dispositive motion pending in the case. Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 602-603. In doing so, a court 12 must consider whether the pending motion is potentially dispositive of the entire case, and 13 whether that motion can be decided without additional discovery. Id. This “preliminary peek” is 14 not intended to prejudge the outcome, but to evaluate the propriety of a stay of discovery “with 15 the goal of accomplishing the objectives of Rule 1.” Id. (citation omitted). That discovery may 16 involve inconvenience and expense is not sufficient, standing alone, to support a stay of 17 discovery. Turner Broadcasting, 175 F.R.D. at 556. An overly lenient standard for granting 18 requests to stay would result in unnecessary delay in many cases. 19 After taking a preliminary peek at the pending motion to change venue (ECF No. 17), the 20 Court finds that Plaintiff has carried his heavy burden of establishing that discovery should be 21 stayed. The issues before the Court in the pending motion to change venue do not require further 22 discovery. Additionally, discovery is expensive and resolving these issues of venue at the earliest 23 possible stage of litigation is important. Further, the issues in the pending motion are potentially 24 dispositive of the entire case. As such, the Court finds this is a case where a temporary stay of 25 discovery will further the goal of judicial economy. 26 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 18) 27 is granted. 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in the event the motion to change venue (ECF No. 17) 2 is not granted in full, the parties shall file a stipulated proposed discovery plan and scheduling 3 order no later than seven days after a decision is issued by the court. 4 5 DATED: January 10, 2020.

7 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27