Mirae Asset Securities Co., Ltd. v. Ryze Renewables Holdings, LLC

Opinion

1 4 MIRAE ASSET SECURITIES CO., LTD., 5 Case No. 2:23-cv-01492-APG-NJK Plaintiff, v. 7 [Docket Nos. 53, 54] RYZE RENEWABLES HOLDINGS, LLC, et 8 al., 9 Defendants. 10 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to stay discovery pending resolution of its 11 motion to compel arbitration. Docket No. 53. The Court has considered Defendants’ motion, 12 Plaintiff’s response, and Defendants’ reply. Docket Nos. 53, 61, 64. Also pending before the 13 Court is the parties’ joint stipulated discovery plan and scheduling order. Docket No. 54. The 14 filings are properly resolved without a hearing. Local Rule 78-1. 15 “The decision to stay discovery is entrusted to the ‘wide discretion’ of the district court.” 16 Flynn v. Nevada, --- F.R.D. ---, 2024 WL 45371, at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 3, 2024) (citing Little v. City 17 of Seattle¸ 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988)). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not 18 provide for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is 19 pending.” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). A stay of discovery 20 pending resolution of a motion to compel arbitration is appropriate when: (1) the pending motion 21 is potentially dispositive; (2) the motion to compel arbitration can be decided without additional 22 discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a “preliminary peek” at the underlying motion and finds 23 that “there is a reasonable possibility or probability that the district judge will compel arbitration.” 24 Arik v. Meyers, 2020 WL 515843, at *1 (D.Nev. Jan. 31, 2020) (citing Kor Media Grp., LLC v. 25 Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013). The preliminary peek framework is deeply rooted in 26 published case law from this District. Flynn, 2024 WL 45371, at *4. Courts frequently stay 27 discovery pending resolution of a motion to compel arbitration.” See e.g., Mahamedi IP Law, LLP 28 v. Paradice & Li, LLP, 2017 WL 2727874, at *1 (N.D.Cal. Feb. 14, 2017) (collecting cases). ] The Court finds that the required elements are not met in this case. Specifically, this Court is not convinced that a reasonable possibility or probability exists that the motion to compel 3] arbitration will be granted.' 4 Accordingly, the motion to stay discovery is DENIED. Docket No. 53. The parties’ joint discovery plan and scheduling order, in which the parties disagree as to dates and whether 6|| discovery should proceed is DENIED. Docket No. 54. The parties must file an appropriate joint 7|| proposed discovery plan and scheduling order no later than March 6, 2024. 9 Dated: March 1, 2024 Ue.

11 Uniter'S a pt istrate Judge ag g 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ' Conducting the preliminary peek puts the undersigned in an awkward position because the assigned district judge who will decide the motion to compel may have a different view of its 26] merits. See Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 603. The undersigned’s “preliminary peek” at the merits of that motion is not intended to prejudice its outcome. See id. As a result, the undersigned will not 27| provide a lengthy discussion of the merits of the pending motion to compel in this instance. Nonetheless, the undersigned has carefully reviewed the arguments presented in the motion to 28]| compel and subsequent briefing.