Parker v. Hilton Grand Vacations, LLC.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: August 5, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-02263
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6

7 KLALEH J. PARKER, Case No. 2:24-cv-02263-GMN-NJK

8 Plaintiff, Order

9 v. [Docket No. 24]

10 HILTON GRAND VACATIONS COMPANY LLC, 11 Defendant. 12 13 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulation to stay discovery pending the outcome 14 of Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Docket No. 24. 15 The Court has broad discretionary power to control discovery. See, e.g., Little v. City of 16 Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide 17 for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” 18 Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). The party seeking a stay of 19 discovery bears the burden of making a strong showing that discovery should be denied. Turner 20 Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997). Discovery may be stayed 21 when: (1) there is a pending motion that is potentially dispositive; (2) the potentially dispositive 22 motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a “preliminary 23 peek” at the merits of the underlying motion. Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 24 581 (D. Nev. 2013). When the pending motion is one seeking to compel arbitration, a stay is 25 appropriate when the preliminary peek reveals that there is a reasonable possibility or probability 26 that the district judge will compel arbitration. See Shaughnessy v. Credit Acceptance Corp. of 27 Nev., 2007 WL 9728688, at *2-3 (D. Nev. Nov. 28, 2007) (granting motion to stay discovery based 28 on, inter alia, the “reasonable possibility or probability that the District Judge will grant 1} Defendant's motion to compel arbitration”). Courts frequently stay discovery pending resolution 2 of a motion to compel arbitration. See, e.g., Mahamedi IP Law, LLP vy. Paradice & Li, LLP, 2017 WL 2727874, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2017) (collecting cases). 4 The Court agrees with the parties that these elements are present here. The motion is 5|| potentially dispositive of the case and may be decided without discovery.! Moreover, the 6] undersigned finds that there is a reasonable possibility or probability that the district judge will 7|| grant the motion to compel arbitration.’ 8 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the stipulation to stay discovery pending the resolution 9| of Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Docket No. 24. In the event the underlying motion 10] to compel is not granted, a joint discovery plan must be filed within 14 days of the resolution of 11] the motion to compel. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: August 5, 2025

Nancy J.Koppe 15 United-States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ' The parties disagree whether discovery is needed to decide the underlying motion to compel arbitration. Docket No. 24 at 2, n.1. The Court is not persuaded that discovery is required 24| for the resolution of the motion to compel. 25 ? Conducting the preliminary peek puts the undersigned in an awkward position because the assigned district judge will decide the motion to compel and 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 the motion to compel is not intended to prejudice its outcome. See id. Asa result, the undersigned 27] will not provide a lengthy discussion of the merits of the pending motion in this instance. Nonetheless, the undersigned has carefully reviewed the arguments presented in the underlying 28] motion and subsequent briefing. See Dockets Nos. 14, 21, 23.