San Francisco Comprehensive Tours, LLC v. Tripadvisor, LLC

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: April 21, 2021
• Docket: 2:20-cv-02117
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 SAN FRANCISCO COMPREHENSIVE Case No. 2:20-cv-02117-GMN-DJA TOURS, LLC 7 Plaintiff, 8 ORDER v. 9 TRIPADVISOR, LLC, et al.,

10 Defendants.

11 12 Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 18), filed 13 on March 30, 2021. Plaintiff filed a Response (ECF No. 19) on April 13, 2021 along with a 14 Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 20) on April 20, 2021. Defendants 15 filed a Reply (ECF No. 21) on April 20, 2021. The Court finds this matter properly resolved 16 without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. 17 Courts have broad discretionary power to control discovery. See, e.g., Little v. City of 18 Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir.1988). In deciding whether to grant a stay of discovery, the 19 Court is guided by the objectives of Rule 1 to ensure a just, speedy, and inexpensive 20 determination of every action. See Kidneigh v. Tournament One Corp., 2013 WL 1855764, at *2 21 (D. Nev. May 1, 2013). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or 22 blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” Tradebay, LLC v. 23 eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 600 (D. Nev. 2011). However, preliminary issues such as 24 jurisdiction, venue, or immunity are common situations that may justify a stay. See Twin City 25 Fire Ins. v. Employers of Wausau, 124 F.R.D. 653 (D. Nev. 1989); see also Kabo Tools Co. v. 26 Porauto Indus. Co., 2013 WL 5947138, at *1 (D. Nev. Oct. 31, 2013) (granting stay based on 27 alleged lack of personal jurisdiction); Ministerio Roca Solida v. U.S. Dep’t of Fish & Wildlife, 1 jurisdiction). Further, motions to stay discovery pending resolution of a dispositive motion may 2 be granted when: (1) the pending motion is potentially dispositive; (2) the potentially dispositive 3 motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a “preliminary 4 peek” at the merits of the potentially dispositive motion to evaluate the likelihood of dismissal. 5 See Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013). 6 A party seeking to stay discovery pending resolution of a potentially dispositive motion 7 bears the heavy burden of establishing that discovery should be stayed. See, e.g., Turner 8 Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997) (noting that a 9 stay of discovery may be appropriate where the complaint was “utterly frivolous, or filed merely 10 for settlement value.”); Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975). When 11 deciding whether to issue a stay, a court must take a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the 12 dispositive motion pending in the case. Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 602-603. In doing so, a court 13 must consider whether the pending motion is potentially dispositive of the entire case, and 14 whether that motion can be decided without additional discovery. Id. This “preliminary peek” is 15 not intended to prejudge the outcome, but to evaluate the propriety of a stay of discovery “with 16 the goal of accomplishing the objectives of Rule 1.” Id. (citation omitted). That discovery may 17 involve inconvenience and expense is not sufficient, standing alone, to support a stay of 18 discovery. Turner Broadcasting, 175 F.R.D. at 556. An overly lenient standard for granting 19 requests to stay would result in unnecessary delay in many cases. 20 After taking a preliminary peek at the pending Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 15) and the 21 Response (ECF No. 16) and Reply (ECF No. 17), the Court finds that Defendants have carried 22 their heavy burden of establishing that discovery should be stayed. The issues before the Court in 23 the pending motion to dismiss do not require further discovery and are dispositive of the entire 24 case. Additionally, discovery is expensive and resolving issues of jurisdiction at the earliest 25 possible stage of litigation is important. The Court is not convinced that Plaintiff will survive 26 Defendants’ challenge, but notes, of course, that its view “may be very different than how the 27 assigned district judge will see the . . . picture.” AMC Fabrication, Inc. v. KRD Trucking W., Inc., 1 2012 WL 4846152, *4 (D. Nev. Oct. 10, 2012). As such, the Court finds this is a case where a 2 temporary stay of discovery will further the goal of judicial economy. 3 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 4 18) is granted. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in the event that the motion to dismiss is not granted in 6 full, the parties shall file a stipulated proposed discovery plan and scheduling order no later than 7 14 days after a decision on the pending motion to dismiss (ECF No. 15) is issued by the court. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in light of the stay of discovery, Plaintiff’s Proposed 9 Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 20) is denied. 10 11 DATED: April 21, 2021.

13 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27