Swallow v. Elko County

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: September 22, 2023
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00227
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * *

4 MARCUS RONALD SWALLOW, Case No. 3:23-CV-00227-ART-CLB

5 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY AND DENYING MOTION TO 6 v. PROCEED DUE TO MERIT

7 ELKO COUNTY, et. al., [ECF Nos. 21, 22]

8 Defendants.

9 Currently pending before the Court is Defendants Miguel Pantelakis, Matthew Ulm, 10 and Luis Perez’s (collectively referred to as “Defendants”) motion to stay discovery. (ECF 11 No. 21.) Plaintiff Marcus Ronald Swallow (“Swallow”) filed a motion “to proceed due to 12 merit”, (ECF No. 22), which the Court interprets as an opposition to the motion to stay 13 discovery. The Court has reviewed the relevant pleadings and papers, and, for the 14 reasons set for below, grants Defendants’ motion to stay discovery and denies Swallow’s 15 motion to proceed. 16 To determine if a stay is appropriate pending the ruling on a motion to dismiss, a 17 court must consider the following factors: (1) whether the pending motion is potentially 18 dispositive of the case; (2) whether the motion can be decided without additional 19 discovery; and (3) whether the court is convinced that the plaintiff cannot state a claim for 20 relief. Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013). The court 21 must take a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the underlying dispositive motion in order 22 to find whether the plaintiff can state a claim. Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 23 597, 603 (D. Nev. 2011). The “preliminary peek” does not prejudge the outcome of the 24 motion; it merely evaluates whether an order staying discovery is warranted. Id. 25 In conducting its review, the court also considers the goal of Federal Rule of Civil 26 Procedure 1, which provides that the Rules should “be construed, administered, and 27 employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive 1 determination of every action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. With Rule 1 as its prime directive, the 2 court must decide whether it is more just to speed the parties along in discovery while a 3 dispositive motion is pending or to delay discovery to accomplish the inexpensive 4) determination of the case. See Big City Dynasty v. FP Holdings, L.P., 336 F.R.D. 507, 512 (D. Nev. 2020). 6 Having reviewed all the factors set forth above and after conducting a “preliminary 7 | peek” of the underlying motion, which seeks dismissal based on the applicable statute of 8 | limitations, the Court finds that a stay of discovery pending resolution of the motion to 9| dismiss is appropriate in this case. 10 Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to stay, (ECF No. 21), is GRANTED, and 11 Swallow's motion to proceed due to merit, (ECF No. 22), is DENIED. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. . DATED: September 22, 2023. 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28