Leggett v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5

6 LARRY LEGGETT, Case No. 2:22-cv-01823-APG-NJK 7 Plaintiff, Order 8 v. [Docket No. 17] 9

10 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 11 Defendant. 12 13 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to stay discovery pending resolution of its 14 motion for summary judgment. Docket No. 17; see also Docket No. 16 (motion for summary 15 judgment). Plaintiff filed a response. Docket Nos. 18, 19. No reply is needed. The motion is 16 properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons discussed below, the 17 motion to stay discovery is GRANTED. 18 The Court has broad discretionary power to control discovery. See, e.g., Little v. City of 19 Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide 20 for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” 21 Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). Discovery should proceed 22 absent a “strong showing” to the contrary. Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 23 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997). The case law in this District makes clear that requests to stay 24 discovery may be granted when: (1) the underlying motion is potentially dispositive in scope and 25 effect; (2) the underlying motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court 26 has taken a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the underlying motion and is convinced that the 27 plaintiff will be unable to prevail. Kor Media Grp., LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 28 1} 2013). The Court is guided in its analysis by the objectives in Rule 1 to secure a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of cases. 7radebay, 278 F.R.D. at 602. 3 A stay of discovery is warranted in this case. Defendant’s motion 1s potentially dispositive A} of all of Plaintiff's claims. See Docket Nos. 1; 16. Further, Defendant’s motion for summary 5|| judgment relates entirely to a question of law and can be resolved without any additional discovery. Finally, the undersigned’s evaluation of the motion for summary judgment reveals that it is 7|| sufficiently meritorious to justify a stay of discovery.! 8 Accordingly, the motion to stay discovery is GRANTED. Docket No. 17. In the event 9} resolution of the motion for summary judgment does not result in the termination of this case, a jomt proposed discovery plan must be filed within 14 days of the issuance the order resolving the 11] motion for summary judgment. 12} IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: August 16, 2023 A. 14 ZN Nancy J- pe 15 Unite es Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ———____"!_—_EE Conducting this preliminary peek puts the undersigned in an awkward position because the 26]| assigned district judge who will decide the underlying motions may have a different view of their merits. See Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 603. This “preliminary peek” at the merits of the underlying 27] motions is not intended to prejudice their outcome. See id. As a result, the undersigned will not provide a lengthy discussion of the merits of the underlying motions. Nonetheless, the undersigned 28] has carefully reviewed the arguments presented in the underlying motions and subsequent briefing.