United States District Court, D. Nevada
FERENBACH, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the Court is Defendants' Joint Motion to Stay Discovery
Pending Resolution of Defendants' Motions to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 38). No opposition has
evaluating a motion to stay discovery while a dispositive
motion is pending, the court initially considers the goal of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1. The guiding premise of the
Rules is that the Rules “should be construed and
administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive
determination of every action.” FED. R. CIV. P. 1. It
needs no citation of authority to recognize that discovery is
expensive. The Supreme Court has long mandated that trial
courts should resolve civil matters fairly but without undue
cost. Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294,
306 (1962). This directive is echoed by Rule 26, which
instructs the court to balance the expense of discovery
against its likely benefit. See FED. R. CIV. P.
with the Supreme Court's mandate that trial courts should
balance fairness and cost, the Rules do not provide for
automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially
dispositive motion is pending. Skellerup Indus. Ltd. v.
City of Los Angeles, 163 F.R.D. 598, 600-01 (C.D. Cal.
1995). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1),
“[t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order to
protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment,
oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Whether to
grant a stay is within the discretion of the court.
Munoz-Santana v. U.S. I.N.S., 742 F.2d 561, 562 (9th
Cir. 1984). The party seeking the protective order, however,
has the burden “to ‘show good cause' by
demonstrating harm or prejudice that will result from the
discovery.” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c)(1). Satisfying the
“good cause” obligation is a challenging task. A
party seeking “a stay of discovery carries the heavy
burden of making a ‘strong showing' why discovery
should be denied.” Gray v. First Winthrop
Corp., 133 F.R.D. 39, 40 (N.D.Cal.1990) (citing
Blankenship v. Hearst Corp. 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir.
imposing a stay of discovery pending a dispositive motion is
permissible if there are no factual issues raised by the
dispositive motion, discovery is not required to address the
issues raised by the dispositive motion, and the court is
“convinced” that the plaintiff is unable to state
a claim for relief. Rae v. Union Bank, 725 F.2d 478,
481 (9th Cir. 1984); White v. Am. Tobacco Co., 125
F.R.D. 508 (D. Nev. 1989) (citing Wood v. McEwen,
644 F.2d 797, 801 (9th Cir. 1981) cert. denied, 455 U.S. 942
(1982). Typical situations in which staying discovery pending
a ruling on a dispositive motion are appropriate would be
where the dispositive motion raises issues of jurisdiction,
venue, or immunity. TradeBay, LLC v. Ebay, Inc., 278
F.R.D. 597, 600 (D. Nev. 2011).
in the District of Nevada apply a two-part test when
evaluating whether a discovery stay should be imposed.
Id. (citations omitted). First, the pending motion
must be potentially dispositive of the entire case or at
least the issue on which discovery is sought. Id.
Second, the court must determine whether the pending
dispositive motion can be decided without additional
discovery. Id. When applying this test, the court
must take a “preliminary peek” at the merits of
the pending dispositive motion to assess whether a stay is
warranted. Id. The purpose of the “preliminary
peek” is not to prejudge the outcome of the dispositive
motion. Rather, the court's role is to evaluate the
propriety of an order staying or limiting discovery with the
goal of accomplishing the objectives of Rule 1.
Joint Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of
Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint (ECF
No. 38) is granted for two reasons. First, no opposition has
been filed to the motion to stay. Local Rule 7-2(d) states,
"the failure of an opposing party to file points and
authorities in response to any motion, except a motion under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 or a motion for attorney's fees,
constitutes a consent to the granting of the motion."
Here, it would seem that Plaintiff has consented to the
granting of the motion under Local Rule 7-2(d).
Court has considered the instant motion in light of the goals
of Rule 1 to “secure the just, speedy, and
inexpensive” determination of all cases.
and for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
Defendants' Joint Motion to Stay Discovery Pending
Resolution of Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs
Complaint (ECF No. 38) is GRANTED.
event resolution of the motions to dismiss (ECF No. 21 and
22) do not result in the disposition of this case, the
parties must file a new joint discovery plan within 21 days
of the issuance of the order(s) resolving those motions.
FURTHER ORDERED that a status hearing is scheduled for 11:00