Lux v. Buchanan

Opinion

CURTIS LUX, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00839-MMD-NJK

Plaintiff(s), Order

v. [Docket Nos. 10, 14]

JORDANA BUCHANAN, et al.,

Defendant(s). Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to stay discovery pending resolution of their motion to partially dismiss. Docket No. 10.1 Plaintiffs do not oppose the motion and, instead, signed a stipulation to stay discovery. Docket No. 14. For the reasons discussed more fully below, the motion and stipulation to stay discovery are DENIED. The Court has broad discretionary power to control discovery. See, e.g., Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). The party seeking a stay of discovery bears the burden of making a strong showing that discovery should be denied. Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997). Discovery may be stayed when: (1) there is a pending motion that is potentially dispositive in nature and scope; (2) the potentially dispositive motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the underlying motion and is convinced that Plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief. Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013). 1 The motion to dismiss has been fully briefed. Docket No. 6 (motion); Docket No. 9 (response); Docket No. 11 (reply). ] The instant requests to stay discovery fail from the outset because the underlying motion is not potentially dispositive. To warrant a stay of all discovery in the case, the underlying motion must be potentially dispositive of the entire case. E.g., Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 602 (“the pending motion must be potentially dispositive of the entire case or at least dispositive on the issue on 5] which discovery is sought”); Martinez v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dept., 2020 WL 3166611, at *1 6] (D. Nev. June 9, 2020) (denying motion to stay discovery because it was premised on motion seeking only partial dismissal).? The motion to dismiss here is seeking partial dismissal of the case and acknowledges that the case will proceed even if that motion is granted. See, e.g., Docket 9] No. 6 at 4 (acknowledging that the wage and hour aspect of the case will proceed). As such, the 10] underlying motion is not potentially dispositive and a stay of all discovery is not warranted. Accordingly, the motion and stipulation to stay discovery are DENIED. Dated: July 6, 2023

Nancy J. Koppe. United States Magistrate Judge ? As there is no request for a partial stay of the discovery pertinent only to the claims challenged in the motion to dismiss, the Court does not opine herein on whether a partial stay of discovery would be warranted.