Kor Media Grp., LLC v. Green

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 5 6 7 v. [Docket Nos. 69, 70] g Bank of America, N.A., 9 Defendant(s). 10 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to stay discovery pending resolution of its 11] motion to dismiss. Docket No. 70; see also Docket No. 69 (sealed version).' Plaintiff filed a 12] response in opposition. Docket No. 75.2. Defendant filed a reply. Docket No. 81. Having 13] considered the governing standards, see, e.g., Kor Media Grp., LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 14] 581-84 (D. Nev. 2013), the Court finds that a stay of discovery is warranted.> Accordingly, the motion to stay discovery is GRANTED. If resolution of the underlying motion to dismiss does 16] not result in termination of this action, the parties must confer and file an amended joint discovery 17} plan within 21 days of the issuance of that order. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: October 7, 2025 20 Nancy J. K 21 United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 ' The motion to dismiss has been briefed. Docket Nos. 40, 42, 47, 50, 51, 52, 53, 59, 60. 24 ? The Court liberally construes the filings of pro se litigants. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). 25 > Conducting the preliminary peek puts the undersigned in an awkward position because 26] the assigned district judge will decide the underlying motion and may have a different view of the merits. See Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 603 (D. Nev. 2011). The undersigned’s 27| “preliminary peek” at the merits of the motion for judgment on the pleadings is not intended to prejudice its outcome. See id. The undersigned carefully reviewed the arguments presented in the underlying motion and related briefing, but will not provide discussion of the merits herein.