NEXRF Corp. v. Playtika Ltd.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: April 7, 2021
• Docket: 3:20-cv-00603
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3

NEXRF, CORP., 4 3:20-cv-00603-MMD-CLB Plaintiff, 5 v. 6 ORDER PLAYTIKA LTD., et. al., 7 Defendants. 8 9 Before the court is Defendants Playtika, Ltd. and Playtika Holding Corp.’s (“Playtika”) 10 motion to stay discovery pending rulings on the motions to dismiss. (ECF No. 29).1 Plaintiff 11 responded, (ECF No. 48), and Playtika replied. (ECF No. 49). The court has reviewed the 12 relevant pleadings and papers, and, for the reasons set forth below, the court grants the 13 motion. 14 Courts have broad discretionary power to control discovery, including the decision to 15 allow or deny discovery. See e.g., Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). 16 Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court may stay or limit the scope of discovery 17 upon a showing of good cause by the moving party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Meeting the 18 “good cause” requirement is no easy task. The party seeking the stay must make a “strong 19 showing” as to why discovery should be denied; broad statements about inconvenience, 20 cost, or a need for protection are insufficient. Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 21 429 (9th Cir. 1975); Ministerio Roca Solida v. U.S. Dep’t of Fish & Wildlife, 288 F.R.D. 500, 22 503 (D. Nev. 2013). 23 To determine if a stay of discovery is appropriate pending the ruling on a motion to 24 dismiss, the court considers the following factors: (1) whether the pending motion is 25 26 1 Defendant Caesars Interactive Entertainment (“Caesars”) joined this motion. (ECF 27 No. 35). 1 || potentially dispositive of the case; (2) whether the motion can be decided without additional 2 || discovery; and, (3) whether the court is convinced that the plaintiff cannot state a claim for 3 || relief. Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013); First Am. Title 4 || Ins. Co. v. Commerce Assocs., LLC, No. 2:15-cv-832-RFB-VCF, 2015 WL 7188387, at *2 (D. Nev. Nov. 13, 2015). In order to determine whether the plaintiff can state a claim, the 6 || court must take a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the underlying dispositive motion—in 7 ||this case motions to dismiss filed by both Playtika and Caesars, (ECF Nos. 26, 28). 8 || Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 602-03 (D. Nev. 2011). The “preliminary peek” 9 || does not prejudge the outcome of the motion; it merely evaluates whether an order staying 10 || discovery is warranted. /d. at 603. 11 In conducting its review, the court also considers the goal of Federal Rule of Civil 12 || Procedure 1, which provides that the Rules should “be construed, administered, and 13 |lemployed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive 14 || determination of every action.” With Rule 1 as its prime directive, the court must decide 15 || whether it is more just to speed the parties along in discovery while a dispositive motion is 16 |! pending or to delay discovery to accomplish the inexpensive determination of the case. See 17 || Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997); 18 || see also Twin City Fire Ins. v. Employers Insurance of Wausau, 124 F.R.D. 652, 653 (D. 19 || Nev. 1989). 20 Having reviewed all of the factors set forth above and after conducting a “preliminary 21 ||peek” of the underlying the motions, the court finds that a stay pending discovery is 22 || appropriate in this case. Accordingly, Platika’s motion for stay pending ruling on the motions 23 || to dismiss (ECF No. 29) is GRANTED. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 DATED: April 7, 2021 . 26 27 Ae ese