United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER (DOCKET NO. 30)
J. KOPPE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to stay
discovery pending resolution of its motion for summary
judgment. See Docket No. 30; see also
Docket No. 29 (motion for summary judgment). The Court has
previously denied a similar motion filed in another case.
See Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Vegas Prop. Servs., 2017
U.S. Dist. Lexis 66682 (D. Nev. May 2, 2017). For the reasons
discussed therein and below, the Court
DENIES the motion to stay discovery.
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).
motion for summary judgment is premised on the assertion that
Ninth Circuit authority finding Nevada's foreclosure
statute facially invalid requires judgment in Plaintiff's
favor notwithstanding any notice it may have received.
See Docket No. 29 at 4-8. While Plaintiff cites
district court decisions favorable to it, the Court is also
aware of decisions contrary to its position. 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 based on Ninth Circuit authority “that
receipt of actual notice deprives a claimant of standing to
raise a procedural due process claim”). As such, the
Court is not convinced that Plaintiff will prevail on its
motion for summary judgment, such that conducting discovery
will be a waste of effort. See, e.g., Vegas
Prop. Servs., 2017 U.S. Dist. Lexis 66682, at *3
(denying stay for same reason).
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 ...