McGraw v. Kim

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5

6 JOHN MCGRAW, Case No. 2:22-cv-01414-APG-NJK 7 Plaintiff, Order 8 v. [Docket Nos. 21, 25] 9

10 CHARLES KIM, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulation to stay discovery. Docket No. 25. 14 The Court has broad discretionary power to control discovery. See, e.g., Little v. City of 15 Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide 16 for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” 17 Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). Discovery should proceed 18 absent a “strong showing” to the contrary. Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 19 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997). The case law in this District makes clear that requests to stay 20 discovery may be granted when: (1) the underlying motion is potentially dispositive in scope and 21 effect; (2) the underlying motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court 22 has taken a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the underlying motion and is convinced that the 23 plaintiff will be unable to prevail. Kor Media Grp., LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 24 2013). The Court is guided in its analysis by the objectives in Rule 1 to secure a just, speedy, and 25 inexpensive determination of cases. Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 602. 26 A stay of discovery is warranted in this case. The parties agree that the pending motions 27 to dismiss are potentially dispositive. Docket No. 25 at 2. See also Docket Nos. 5, 9 (motions to 28 1} dismiss). Additionally, the undersigned’s evaluation of the motions to dismiss reveals that they 2|| are sufficiently meritorious to justify a stay of discovery. ! 3 Accordingly, the stipulation to stay discovery is GRANTED. Docket No. 25. In the event 4| resolution of the motions to dismiss does not result in the termination of this case, a joint proposed 5|| discovery plan must be filed no later than 14 days after the issuance of the order resolving the motions to dismiss at Docket Nos. 5, 9. 7 Defendants’ motion to stay discovery is DENIED as moot. Docket No. 21. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: November 8, 2022 10 of fa Nancy J. 11 United Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25] ———“ Conducting this preliminary peek puts the undersigned in an awkward position because the 26]| assigned district judge who will decide the underlying motion may have a different view of its merits. See Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 603. This “preliminary peek” at the merits of the underlying 27] motion is not intended to prejudice its outcome. See id. As a result, the undersigned will not provide a lengthy discussion of the merits of the underlying motion. Nonetheless, the undersigned 28] has carefully reviewed the arguments presented in the underlying motion.