United States District Court, D. Nevada
FERENBACH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the court is Nationstar Mortgage LLC's Motion to Stay
Discovery Pending Resolution of Its Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 29).
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 dispositive motion is
permissible if there are no factual issues raised by the
dispositive motion, discovery is not required to address the
issues raised by the dispositive motion, 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 apply a two-part test when
evaluating whether a discovery stay should be imposed.
Id. (citations omitted). First, the pending motion
must be potentially dispositive of the entire case or at
least the issue on which discovery is sought. Id.
Second, the court must determine whether the pending
dispositive motion can be decided without additional
discovery. Id. When applying this test, the court
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 dispositive
motion. 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.
Motion to stay is granted for two reasons. First, no
opposition has been filed to motion to stay. Local Rule
7-2(d) states, “[t]he failure of an opposing party to
file points and authorities in response to any motion shall
constitute consent to the granting of the motion.”
Here, it would seem that the other parties have consented to
the granting of the motion under Local Rule 7-2(d).
Court has considered the motion to stay in light of the goals
of Rule 1 to “secure the just, speedy, and
inexpensive” determination of all cases.
and for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the
Motion to Stay (ECF No. 29) is hereby GRANTED. In the event
resolution of the Motion for Summary (ECF No. 28) does not
result in the disposition of this case, the parties must file
a new joint discovery plan within 21 days of the issuance of
the order resolving that motion.
FURTHER ORDERED that a status hearing is scheduled for 1:00