United States District Court, D. Nevada
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR FIRST FRANKLIN MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-FF11, Plaintiff,
LEE FAMILY PROPERTIES, LLC, et al., Defendants.
FERENBACH, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the Court is Plaintiff's unopposed Motion to Stay
Discovery (ECF No. 29) pending resolution of Plaintiff's
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. On May 26, 2017,
Plaintiff commenced this action, seeking a declaration and
determination that the HOA sale did not convey the Property
to Lee Family Properties free and clear of Deutsche
Bank's preexisting interest in the property. (ECF No. 1).
Plaintiff's motion to stay is granted for two reasons.
Failure to File An Opposition Under LR 7-2(d)
to Local Rule 7-2(d), “The failure of an opposing party
to file points and authorities in response to any motion
shall constitute a consent to the granting of the
have failed to file points and authorities in opposition to
Plaintiff's motion. Failure to file an opposition
constitutes consent to the granting of the motion under LR
Motion to Stay Warranted Under Existing Case Law
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 motion to dismiss is
permissible if there are no factual issues raised by the
motion to dismiss, discovery is not required to address the
issues raised by the motion to dismiss, 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 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 motion to dismiss. 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.
resolution of the pending motion for partial summary judgment
may significantly narrow issues in controversy. The motion
for partial summary judgment does not require discovery to
address the legal ...