WP 6 Restaurant Management Group, LLC v. Zurich American Insurance Company

Opinion

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6

7 WP 6 RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01506-KJD-NJK 8 Plaintiff(s), Order 9 v. [Docket Nos. 44, 46] 10 ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE 11 COMPANY, 12 Defendant(s). 13 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to stay discovery pending resolution of its 14 motion to dismiss. Docket No. 44; see also Docket No. 42 (motion to dismiss). Plaintiff filed a 15 response in opposition. Docket No. 50. Defendant filed a reply. Docket No. 55. The motion to 16 stay discovery is properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons 17 discussed below, the motion to stay discovery is GRANTED.1 18 The Court has broad discretionary power to control discovery. See, e.g., Little v. City of 19 Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide 20 for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” 21 Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). Discovery should proceed 22 absent a “strong showing” to the contrary. Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 23 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997). The case law in this District makes clear that requests to stay 24 discovery may be granted when: (1) the underlying motion is potentially dispositive in scope and 25 effect; (2) the underlying motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court 26 has taken a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the underlying motion and is convinced that the 27 1 As a result, Plaintiff’s pending motion to compel discovery (Docket No. 46) is DENIED 28 without prejudice. 1} plaintiff will be unable to prevail. Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013). The Court is guided in its analysis by the objectives in Rule 1 to secure a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of cases. Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 602. 4 The Court is satisfied that a stay of discovery is appropriate in this case. As to the first two 5] requirements, the motion to dismiss is potentially dispositive of this case and it can be decided 6] without discovery. As to the third requirement, the undersigned’s evaluation of the motion to 7|| dismiss reveals that it is sufficiently meritorious to justify a stay of discovery. Indeed, Defendant’s 8|| position in seeking dismissal is consistent with the majority of cases addressing similar pandemic- related insurance disputes brought by businesses, including decisions from within this District. See, e.g., Circus Circus LV, LP vy. AIG Spec. Ins. Co.,___ F. Supp.3d__, 2021 WL 769660 (D. 11] Nev. Feb. 26, 2021). 12 Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to stay discovery (Docket No. 44) is GRANTED. Asa 13] result, Plaintiff's pending motion to compel discovery (Docket No. 46) is DENIED without 14] prejudice. 15 In the event resolution of Defendant’s motion to dismiss does not result in the termination 16] of this case, an amended discovery plan or joint status report must be filed within 14 days of the 17} issuance of such order. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: June 9, 2021 20 7 / 2 Nancy J. Koppe, 21 United States-Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 ? Conducting the preliminary peek 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 26] merits. See Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 603. The undersigned’s “preliminary peek” at the merits of 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.