United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER (DOCKET NO. 67)
J. KOPPE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion to stay discovery.
Docket No. 67. Defendants filed a response in opposition on
October 16, 2017. Docket No. 74. No reply has been filed, and
the deadline for doing so expired on October 23, 2017.
See Local Rule 7-2(b). The Court finds the motion
properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule
78-1. For the reasons discussed below, the motion to stay
discovery is DENIED.
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.
failed to meet these standards. With respect to Defendants'
pending motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs contend that the motion
“is frivolous [and] has a very low likelihood of
success.” Docket No. 67 at 8. As Plaintiffs argue the
opposite of the governing standard, the pendency of the
motion to dismiss is not a basis on which to stay discovery.
Compare Kor Media, 294 F.R.D. at 581 (the movant
must convince the Court that the motion to dismiss will be
granted). Moreover, the parties appear to be in agreement
that an order granting the motion to dismiss would not
actually dispose of the claims at issue here, but rather
would render Plaintiffs' claims ripe for adjudication in
state court. See Docket No. 67 at 13. Hence, the
outcome of that motion to dismiss does not ultimately impact
the need for discovery, but rather simply transfers the case
to a different forum to proceed further. This fact also dooms
the motion to stay discovery. Cf. Kor Media, 294
F.R.D. at 582 (holding that pendency of motion to transfer
was not grounds to stay discovery based on this
also point to the pendency of their motion to amend the
complaint as grounds to stay discovery. Docket No. 67 at
13-14. In particular, Plaintiffs argue that such motion means
that the current discovery deadlines will need to be
extended. See Id. at 14. Plaintiffs fail to explain
why the Court should stop discovery based on its assertion
that a pending motion will lead to the need for further
discovery. Quite the contrary, given Plaintiffs'
assertion that they “will need a significant amount of
additional time to complete discovery, ” id.
at 3, the Court is unclear why Plaintiffs have not filed a
request to extend discovery deadlines. At any rate, discovery
should proceed based on the current claims in the operative
complaint and, in the event further amendment is allowed and
such amendment requires additional time for discovery, the
parties may seek appropriate relief at that
reasons outlined above, the motion to stay discovery is
 On July 31, 2017, the Court rejected
the request to stay discovery that was included with the
discovery plan and ordered that such a request must be made
by filing a motion or stipulation addressing the pertinent
standards. Docket No. 53 at 1. It is not clear why Plaintiffs
waited more than two months to file the instant motion on
October 2, 2017, Docket No. 67, at which time discovery
should have been well underway and the deadline for expert
disclosures was imminent, see Docket No. 53 (setting
initial expert disclosure deadline of October 6, 2017). The
motion to stay discovery indicates that Plaintiffs have
undertaken no affirmative discovery of any kind.
See Docket No. 67 at 7 (stating that Defendants have
served initial disclosures and propounded written discovery,
but that Plaintiffs have only served initial
 A declaration attached to the motion
to stay discovery notes that there is a pending motion to
remand and a pending motion to reconsider regarding remand,
which Plaintiffs contend “could substantially affect
whether this case will proceed in federal court.”
Docket No. 67 at 3. The declaration states without
elaboration that remand would lead to “invalidating the
discovery order.” Id. Plaintiffs have failed
to provide any meaningful explanation as to why discovery
conducted while litigation is pending in this Court cannot be
used in state court proceedings in the event of remand. As
such, they have not carried their burden of showing a stay of
discovery is appropriate pending resolution of the remand
dispute. Cf. Kor Media, 294 F.R.D. at 582. Moreover,
United States District Judge Andrew P. Gordon has already
denied a motion for remand, and the uphill battle Plaintiffs
face in seeking reconsideration further militates against
staying discovery. See, e.g., Kabo Tools Co. v.
Porauto Indus. Co., 2013 WL 5947138, at *2 (D. Nev. Oct.
31, 2017) (denying motion to stay discovery pending
resolution of motion for reconsideration).
 The Court expresses no opinion herein
as to any future request to extend discovery