Walker v. GEICO Casualty Company

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Case No.: 2:19-cv-00909-KJD-NJK Plaintiff(s), Order v. [Docket No. 19] Defendant(s). Pending before the Court is a motion to stay discovery on extra-contractual issues pending resolution of Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Docket No. 19; see also Docket No. 6 (motion to dismiss). Plaintiff filed a response. Docket No. 19. Defendant filed a reply. Docket No. 23. The motion is properly decided without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. Having considered the pertinent standards, see, e.g., Kor Media Grp., LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013), the motion to stay discovery is GRANTED.1 Discovery is stayed only with respect to extra- contractual issues and discovery will otherwise proceed. Cf. Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 602 (D. Nev. 2011) (limited stays of discovery are proper where the pending motion 1 These standards require, inter alia, that the undersigned conduct a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the motion to dismiss, which is not intended to prejudice the outcome of that motion and puts the undersigned in an awkward position because the assigned district judge who will decide the motion to dismiss may have a different view of its merits. See, e.g., id. at 583 n.4. As a result, the undersigned will not provide 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 dismiss and subsequent briefing, and has concluded that it is appropriate to stay discovery on the extra-contractual issues. is “at least dispositive on the issue on which discovery is sought”). In the event resolution of the motion to dismiss does not result in dismissal of the extra-contractual claims, the parties shall file an amended proposed discovery plan within 14 days of the resolution of that motion. Dated: October 3, 2019

United States Magistrate Judge