Spurbeck v. Wyndham Worldwide

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 8 TANYA SPURBECK, 9 Case No.: 2:20-cv-00346-RFB-NJK Plaintiff(s), 10 Order v. 11 [Docket No. 12] WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP, 12 INC., et al., 13 Defendant(s). 14 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to stay discovery pending resolution of its 15 motion to dismiss. Docket No. 12; see also Docket No. 9 (motion to dismiss). Plaintiff filed a 16 response in opposition. Docket No. 19.1 Defendant filed a reply. Docket No. 24. Discovery may 17 be stayed when: (1) there is a pending motion that is potentially dispositive; (2) the potentially 18 dispositive motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a 19 “preliminary peek” at the merits of the potentially dispositive motion and is convinced that the 20 plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief. See Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 21 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013). Applying those standards here, the Court finds that a stay of discovery 22 is appropriate.2 23

24 1 As a pro se litigant, the Court construes Plaintiff’s filings liberally. See, e.g., Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). 25 2 Conducting the preliminary peek puts the undersigned in an awkward position because 26 the assigned district judge who will decide the motion to dismiss may have a different view of its merits. See Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 603 (D. Nev. 2011). The undersigned’s 27 “preliminary peek” at the merits of that motion is not intended to prejudice its outcome. See id. As a result, the undersigned will not provide a lengthy discussion of the merits of the pending 28 motion to dismiss in this instance. 1 Accordingly, the motion to stay discovery is GRANTED. 3 Dated: April 13, 2020

Nancy J. Koppe\, 5 United States Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28