Shahrokhi v. Harter

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 ALI SHAHROKHI, 6 Case No.: 2:20-cv-01623-JAD-NJK Plaintiff, 7 ORDER v. 8 [Docket Nos. 71, 77] JUDGE MATHEW HARTER, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pending before the Court is a motion to stay discovery, filed by Defendants Thomas 12 Standish and Philip Spradling (“Defendants”). Docket No. 71. The Court has considered 13 Defendants’ motion, Plaintiff’s response, and Defendants’ reply. Docket Nos. 71, 76, 83. Also 14 pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendants’ motion to stay. Docket No. 15 77. The motions are properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. 16 The Court has broad discretionary power to control discovery. See, e.g., Little v. City of 17 Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide 18 for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” 19 Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). Discovery should proceed 20 absent a “strong showing” to the contrary. See, e.g., Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda 21 Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997). The case law in this District makes clear that a stay 22 of discovery is appropriate when: (1) the pending motion is potentially dispositive in nature and 23 scope; (2) the potentially dispositive motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) 24 the Court has taken a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the potentially dispositive motion and is 25 convinced that the plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief. See Kor Media Group, LLC 26 v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013).1 27 1 Conducting the “preliminary peek” puts the undersigned in an awkward position because 28 the assigned district judge who will decide the motion to dismiss may have a different view of its merits. See Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 603. The undersigned’s “preliminary peek” at the merits of 1 Defendants ask the Court to stay discovery in this case pending resolution of their motion to dismiss because Defendants are immune from suit under Nevada’s Anti-SLAPP law, Plaintiff 3|| fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and the Younger abstention doctrine applies. See Docket No. 71 at 6-12. The Court finds that each of the three elements required to stay discovery has been shown in this case and that a stay of discovery is warranted as to Defendants 6], Standish and Spradling. 7 Plaintiff asks the Court to strike Defendants’ motion to stay pursuant to Federal Rule of 8|| Civil Procedure 12(f) because the motion asserts the same arguments Defendants submitted in 9] their first motion to stay discovery. See Docket No. 77 at 2-3. As a threshold matter, Plaintiff 10] may not rely on Rule 12(f) to oppose the instant motion. See United Nat. Ins. Co. v. Assurance 11] Co. of America, 2014 WL 4960915, at *1 (D. Nev. June 4, 2014) (“Rule 12(f) cannot serve as the 12} procedural vehicle for striking language contained in motion papers.”). In any event, the Court 13] denied Defendants’ first motion without prejudice, due to its lack of authority to support the arguments made. Therefore, the Court finds that the current motion to stay discovery is properly 15} before the Court. 16 Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to stay discovery is GRANTED, Docket No. 71, and 17] Plaintiffs motion to strike is DENIED. Docket No. 77. In the event the resolution of Defendants’ 18] pending motion to dismiss does not result in the dismissal of charges against these two defendants, 19] these parties must file a joint proposed discovery plan no later than 14 days after the issuance of the order resolving the motion to dismiss. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: December 9, 2020 33 — fer Nancy J. Koppe □ 24 United States Magistrate Judge 25 26|| ————__________ that motion is not intended to prejudice its outcome. See id. As a result, the undersigned will not 27|| provide a lengthy discussion of the merits of the pending motion to dismiss in this instance. Nonetheless, the undersigned has carefully reviewed the arguments presented in the motion to 28] dismiss and subsequent briefing.