United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER(DOCKET NO. 16)
J. KOPPE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to stay discovery
pending resolution of its motion for summary judgment.
See Docket No. 16; see also Docket No. 15
(motion for summary judgment). Defendant filed a response in
opposition. Docket No. 20. No reply was filed. The Court
finds the motion properly resolved without a hearing.
See Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons discussed
below, the Court DENIES the motion to stay
Court has broad discretionary power to control discovery.
See, e.g., Little v. City of Seattle, 863
F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). “The Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket stays
of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is
pending.” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278
F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). The party seeking a stay carries
the heavy burden of making a strong showing why discovery
should be denied. See, e.g., Turner Broadcasting
Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D.
Nev. 1997). The case law in this District makes clear that
requests to stay all discovery may be granted when: (1) the
pending motion is potentially dispositive; (2) the
potentially dispositive motion can be decided without
additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a
“preliminary peek” at the merits of the
potentially dispositive motion and is convinced that the
plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief. See
Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D.
Court finds that a stay of discovery is not appropriate in
this case. Most significantly, the Court has taken a
preliminary peek at the motion for summary judgment and is
not convinced that it will be granted. It bears
repeating that the filing of a non-frivolous dispositive
motion, standing alone, is simply not enough to warrant
staying discovery. See, e.g., Tradebay, 278
F.R.D. at 603. Instead, the Court must be
“convinced” that the dispositive motion will be
granted. See, e.g., id. “That
standard is not easily met.” Kor Media, 294
F.R.D. at 583. “[T]here must be no question in
the court's mind that the dispositive motion will
prevail, and therefore, discovery is a waste of
effort.” Id. (quoting Trazska v. Int'l
Game Tech., 2011 WL 1233298, *3 (D. Nev. Mar. 29, 2011))
(emphasis in original). The Court requires this robust
showing that the dispositive motion will succeed because
applying a lower standard would likely result in unnecessary
delay in many cases. Id. (quoting Trazska,
2011 WL 1233298, at *4).
Court has carefully reviewed the arguments presented in the
motion for summary judgment, as well as the arguments made in
the briefing on the motion to stay discovery. The Court is
simply not convinced that the motion for summary judgment
will be granted, such that conducting discovery will be a
waste of effort. See, e.g., Bayview Loan Serv., LLC v.
SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC, 2017 WL 1100955, at *4-5
(D. Nev. Mar. 22, 2017) (rejecting arguments similar to those
presented by Plaintiff here).
the Court DENIES Plaintiffs motion to stay
discovery. Docket No. 16.
 As the briefing acknowledges, various
judges in this District have found it appropriate to stay
proceedings pending resolution of petitions for
certiorari in the United States Supreme Court.
Docket No. 20 at 5. That issue is not presently before the
Court, but rather the motion seeks a stay of discovery
pending resolution of Plaintiff's motion for summary
 The pending motion is somewhat unusual
in that it is the plaintiff seeking a stay of discovery
pending resolution of its dispositive motion. As such, the
Court modifies the applicable standards in that it is taking
a preliminary peek to determine whether it is convinced that
dispositive relief will be granted to Plaintiff vis-a-vis its
motion for summary judgment.
 Conducting this 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 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.
 Briefing on the motion for summary
judgment has not been ...