United States District Court, D. Nevada
J. KOPPE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
before the Court is Defendant's motion to stay discovery
pending resolution of its motion to dismiss. Docket No. 37;
see also Docket No. 32 (motion to dismiss).
Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition. Docket No. 42.
Defendant filed a reply. Docket No. 43. The Court finds the
motion properly heard without a hearing. See Local
Rule 78-1. For the reasons discussed more fully below, the
motion to stay discovery is DENIED. Docket No. 37.
have 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, 600 (D. Nev. 2011). In deciding whether to grant
a stay of discovery, the Court is guided by the objectives of
Rule 1 to ensure a just, speedy, and inexpensive
determination of every action. Id. at 602-03.
Motions to stay discovery pending resolution of a dispositive
motion 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 to evaluate the
likelihood of dismissal. See Kor Media Group, LLC v.
Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013). A
party seeking to stay discovery pending resolution of a
potentially dispositive motion bears the burden of
establishing that discovery should be stayed. See Kabo
Tools Co. v. Porauto Indus. Co., Ltd., 2013 U.S. Dist.
Lexis 156928, *1 (D. Nev. Oct. 31, 2013) (citing Holiday
Sys., Int'l of Nev. v. Vivarelli, Scharwz, and
Assocs., 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 125542, *5 (D. Nev. Sept.
asks the Court to stay discovery pending resolution of its
motion to dismiss because, it submits, simultaneously
conducting discovery in the arbitration proceedings and in
federal court “subjects [Defendant] ‘to the very
complexities, inconveniences, and expenses of litigation that
[the parties] determined to avoid [by agreeing to
arbitrate].'.” Docket No. 37 at 7 (internal
citation omitted). Defendant further submits that a stay of
discovery would not prejudice Plaintiffs because Defendant is
already obligated to discovery demands in the arbitration
proceedings, eliminating any risk of loss or destruction of
discovery. Docket No. 43 at 5-6.
response, Plaintiffs submit that Defendant's motion to
dismiss raises factual issues regarding the timing and
justifications of Defendant's delayed payments to JAMS
for arbitration proceedings and, therefore, the motion to
dismiss cannot be decided without additional discovery.
Docket No. 42 at 7-8. Plaintiffs further submit that,
although Defendant is in favor of arbitration and submits
that it is participating in arbitration, it nonetheless
agreed to stay arbitration. Id. at 4; see
also Docket No. 42-3 at 2-3. In reply, Defendant submits
that if it had in fact defaulted, JAMS would have issued a
default, which it has not. Docket No. 43 at 4.
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 to dismiss 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 Trazka 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 Traska,
2011 WL 1233298, at *4).
reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES Defendant's
motion to stay discovery pending resolution of its motion to
dismiss. Docket No. 37. The Court ORDERS the parties to file
a joint proposed discovery plan and scheduling order, no
later than January 24, 2018.
 On November 27, 2017, Plaintiffs
notified JAMS of their request to stay arbitration pending a
ruling on Defendant's motion to dismiss. Docket No. 42-2
at 4-5; see also Docket No. 42-2 at 2-3, 7-23
(subsequent notifications to JAMS requesting to stay the
other arbitrations related to the instant case). The same
day, Defendant filed the instant motion. Docket No. 37. On
December 11, 2017, eight days before filing the instant
reply, Defendant notified JAMS that it did not oppose
Plaintiffs' request to stay arbitration. Docket No. 42-3
at 2-3; see also Docket No. 43 (Defendant's
 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 ...