Origin Consulting, LLC v. Criticalriver, Inc.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: April 21, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-01997
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 ORIGIN CONSULTING, LLC, a Nevada Case No. 2:19-cv-01997-KJD-EJY limited liability company; and ORIGIN 5 HOLDINGS, INC., a Nevada corporation, ORDER 6 Plaintiffs,

7 v.

8 CRITICALRIVER, INC., a Delaware corporation; DOES I through X; and ROES I 9 through X,

10 Defendants.

11 12 Before the Court is the Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 25) that 13 seeks to delay an exchange of initial disclosures to 30 days after the expiration of the national and 14 state declarations of emergency or 30 days after the Court rules on the pending Motion to Dismiss. 15 The proposed plan and order further seek a year-long discovery period. This proposal is denied. 16 A dispositive motion, such as a motion to dismiss, does not ordinarily warrant a stay of 17 discovery. Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). The Court may limit 18 discovery for good cause and stay discovery when it is convinced that the plaintiff will be unable to 19 state a claim for relief. Wood v. McEwen, 644 F.2d 797, 801 (9th Cir. 1981) (citing B.R.S. Land 20 Investors v. United States, 596 F.2d 353 (9th Cir. 1978)). However, under certain circumstances it 21 is an abuse of discretion to deny discovery while a dispositive motion is pending. Tradebay, 278 22 F.R.D. at 602. For this reason, a party seeking a stay of discovery carries the heavy burden of making 23 a strong showing why the discovery process should be halted. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. 24 Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997). Here, no motion to stay discovery is before 25 the Court and, as stated, the fact of a motion to dismiss does not warrant a stay. Further, there is no 26 reason why the parties cannot exchange initial disclosures in a timely fashion. Federal Rule does 27 not require in person meetings in order to satisfy the requirements of Rule 26. In fact, initial 1 disclosures are almost exclusively done electronically. To delay this mandatory task for an unknown 2 period of time—that is until the state and national declarations of emergency are over—would 3 potentially put this dispute on hold indefinitely. 4 With respect to the proposal for a year-long discovery period, this is extraordinary given that 5 the proposal provides no basis for this lengthy time period request other than the existence of general 6 orders issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, and COVID-19. But, the general 7 orders do not stay all discovery. Nor has the Court seen a general desire to stay all discovery based 8 on COVID-19. Rather, a great deal of discovery can be and is being done without person-to-person 9 contact, including virtually all written discovery. Moreover, some oral discovery may be done 10 through video-conferencing. Thus, while some extension of the discovery period might be warranted 11 given the circumstances facing Nevada, as well as the nation, the Court has nothing upon which it 12 can justify a doubling of the standard discovery period in this case. 13 Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons, the Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling 14 Order (ECF NO. 25) is DENIED. The parties shall submit a revised proposed plan and order within 15 ten calendar days of this Order. 16 DATED: April 21, 2020 17

18 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27