Underwood v. O-Reilly Auto Parts, Inc.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: February 7, 2023
• Docket: 2:21-cv-01766
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5

6 ANGELA UNDERWOOD, Case No. 2:21-cv-01766-GMN-NJK 7 Plaintiff(s), Order 8 v. [Docket Nos. 252, 253] 9 O’REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES, LLC, et 10 al.,

11 Defendant(s). 12 Pending before the Court is Defendant Amalie Oil’s motion to stay discovery pending 13 resolution of its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Docket No. 252.1 Plaintiff 14 filed a response in opposition. Docket No. 259. Defendant Amalie Oil filed a reply. Docket No. 15 263. Also pending before the Court is Defendant Omni Industries’ and Defendant Omni Specialty 16 Packaging’s motion to stay discovery pending resolution of their motion to dismiss for lack of 17 personal jurisdiction. Docket No. 253.2 Plaintiff filed a response in opposition. Docket No. 260. 18 The Omni Defendants filed a reply. Docket No. 262. The motions to stay discovery are properly 19 resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons discussed below, the Court 20 GRANTS the motions to stay discovery. 21 The Court has broad discretionary power to control discovery. See, e.g., Little v. City of 22 Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide 23 for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” 24 Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). The fact that conducting 25

26 1 That motion to dismiss has been fully briefed. Docket No. 229 (motion); Docket No. 242 (response); Docket No. 243 (reply). 27 2 That motion to dismiss has been fully briefed. Docket No. 240 (motion); Docket No. 244 28 (response); Docket No. 245 (reply). 1 discovery while a potentially dispositive motion is pending may involve inconvenience or expense 2 is not sufficient, standing alone, to impose a stay of discovery. Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda 3 Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997) (quoting Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Emps. Ins. of 4 Wausau, 124 F.R.D. 652, 653 (D. Nev. 1989)). Discovery may be stayed when: (1) there is a 5 pending motion that is potentially dispositive; (2) the potentially dispositive motion can be decided 6 without additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the 7 potentially dispositive motion and finds the motion sufficiently meritorious to warrant a stay. See 8 Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013). When the underlying 9 motion challenges personal jurisdiction, the pendency of that motion strongly favors a stay or, at 10 a minimum, limitations on discovery until the question of jurisdiction is resolved. See PlayUp, 11 Inc. v. Mintas, ___ F. Supp. 3d ____, 2022 WL 10967692, at *6 (D. Nev. Oct. 18, 2022) (quoting 12 Kabo Tools Co. v. Porauto Indus. Co., 2013 WL 5947138, at *2 (D. Nev. Oct. 31, 2013)). A party 13 seeking to stay discovery pending resolution of a potentially dispositive motion bears the burden 14 of establishing that discovery should be stayed. See Holiday Sys., Int’l of Nev. v. Vivarelli, 15 Schwarz, and Assocs., 2012 WL 3860824, at *2 (D. Nev. Sept. 5, 2012). 16 The moving defendants have met their burden in this case. First, the motions to dismiss 17 are potentially dispositive with respect to the claims against these defendants. Cf. Tradebay, 278 18 F.R.D. at 602 (“the pending motion must be potentially dispositive of the entire case or at least 19 dispositive on the issue on which discovery is sought” (emphasis added)). 20 Second, Plaintiff argues that jurisdictional discovery is necessary to resolve the motions to 21 dismiss, an argument that she also advances in briefing the underlying motions to dismiss, e.g., 22 Docket No. 242 at 13-14. The Court finds in the circumstances presented that it is more prudent 23 to defer the question of whether jurisdictional discovery is warranted to the assigned district judge 24 in her determination of the merits of the motion to dismiss. See, e.g., AMC Fabrication, Inc. v. 25 KRD Trucking W., 2012 WL 4846152, at *4 (D. Nev. Oct. 10, 2012). 26 27 28 ] Third, the Court finds that the underlying motions to dismiss are sufficiently meritorious 2|| to warrant a stay of discovery in this case.* 3 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motions to stay discovery pending resolution of the 4 identified motions to dismiss. This stay of discovery applies only with respect to Defendants 5] Amalie Oil, Omni Industries, and Omni Specialty; discovery among the other parties must 6] continue. See, e.g., White v. Am. Tobacco Co., 125 F.R.D. 508, 509 (D. Nev. 1989). In the event 7|| the identified motions to dismiss are not granted in full, a joint status report or joint discovery plan 8|| must be filed by Plaintiff, Defendant Amalie Oil, Defendant Omni Industries, and Defendant Omni Specialty within 14 days of the resolution of those motions to dismiss. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: February 7, 2023 Je Nancy J. Koppe 13 United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 > Conducting the preliminary peek puts the undersigned in an awkward position because the assigned district judge will decide the motions to dismiss and may have a different view of 26] their merits. See Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 603. The undersigned’s “preliminary peek” at the merits of those motions is not intended to prejudice their outcome. See id. As a result, the undersigned 27| will not provide a lengthy discussion of the merits of the pending motions to dismiss in this instance. Nonetheless, the undersigned has carefully reviewed the arguments presented in the underlying motions and subsequent briefing.