Ryne M. Seeto v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: December 10, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00519
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 5 Ryne M. Seeto, Case No. 2:25-cv-00519-CDS-NJK 6 Plaintiff(s), Order 7] [Docket No. 38] Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, et al., 9 10 Defendant(s). 1] Pending before the Court is a stipulation to stay discovery pending resolution of Defendant 12] LVMPD’s motion to dismiss. Docket No. 38; see also Docket No. 30 (motion to dismiss). Having 13] considered the governing standards, see, e.g., Kor Media Grp., LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 14] 581-84 (D. Nev. 2013), the Court finds that a stay of discovery is warranted.' Accordingly, the motion to stay discovery is GRANTED. If resolution of the underlying motion to dismiss does 16] not result in termination of LVMPD from this action, the parties must confer and file a joint 17} discovery plan within 21 days of the issuance of that order. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: December 10, 2025 Nancy JsKoppe 21 United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24) ' Even when the parties do not do so, the Court must apply the correct legal standard. 25|| Bateman vy. U.S. Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1224 (9th Cir. 2000). Conducting the preliminary peek puts the undersigned in an awkward position because the assigned district judge will decide 26] the underlying motion and may have a different view of the merits. See Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 603 (D. Nev. 2011). The undersigned’s “preliminary peek” at the merits of the motion to dismiss is not intended to prejudice its outcome. See id. The undersigned carefully reviewed the arguments presented in the underlying motion and related briefing, but will not 28] provide discussion of the merits herein.