United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER [DOCKET NOS. 30, 40]
J. Koppe United States Magistrate Judge.
before the Court is Defendant Experian Information
Solution's motion to stay discovery pending resolution of
its motion to dismiss. Docket No. 30. The Court has
considered Defendant's motion, Plaintiff's response,
and Defendant's reply. Docket Nos. 30, 32, 36. Also
pending before the Court is Defendant's motion for a
protective order. Docket No. 40. The Court has considered
Defendant's motion, Plaintiff's response and
Defendant's reply. Docket Nos. 40, 41, 43. The motions
are properly resolved without a hearing. See Local
brought this action on January 4, 2019, and filed an amended
complaint on March 12, 2019. Docket Nos. 1, 19. Plaintiff
alleges numerous violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(“FCRA”) and the Nevada Revised Statues
concerning Plaintiff's credit information and her Chapter
13 Bankruptcy proceeding. Docket No. 19 at 3-33.
Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated
Section 1681g(a)(1) of the FCRA as well as NRS Sections 41.60
and 598 in (1) misrepresenting the ways in which consumer
disclosures are used; (2) misrepresenting that reported
addresses would not be used as a factor in a credit score;
and (3) violated FRCA Section 1681g(a)(2) when it failed to
properly disclose the source of the names it reported.
Id. at 10-33.
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). Discovery should proceed
absent a “strong showing” to the contrary.
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. Nev. 2013); see also Tradebay,
278 F.R.D. at 603.
Potentially Dispositive Motion
submits that its pending motion to dismiss potentially
disposes of all of Plaintiff's claims. Docket No. 30 at
7-9. In response, Plaintiff concedes that the motion to
dismiss “arguably addresses all of Plaintiff's
pending claims.” Docket No. 32 at 11.
the Court finds that Defendant's motion to dismiss
Plaintiff's complaint is potentially dispositive of the
Need for Additional Discovery
submits that its pending motion to dismiss does not require
any discovery to be resolved. Docket No. 30 at 9-10.
Defendant submits that its motion to dismiss argues that
Plaintiff fails to state a claim under Rule 8 and that the
court lacks jurisdiction because Plaintiff fails to allege
any injury sufficient for Article III standing; therefore,
discovery is unnecessary to the resolution of its motion to
dismiss. Id. at 6-7.
response, Plaintiff submits that discovery is required on her
claims. Docket No. 32 at 11. Plaintiff submits that the
nuances of Defendant's reinvestigation of her disputes
are unknown, but that this evidence is routinely explored in
discovery and requires Defendant to turn over information.
Id. Plaintiff further submits that discovery is
required because Defendant routinely produces policy
documents in discovery which explain how it processes
consumer disputes, but that it has been concealing
additional, critical policy documents for years. Id.
Plaintiff submits that discovery is relevant to her
disclosure and reinvestigation claims, especially on credit
information and credit scoring. Id. at 11-12.
reply, Defendant submits that discovery is neither
appropriate nor necessary to decide the motion to dismiss.
Docket No. 36 at 5. Defendant submits that Plaintiff insists
on discovery to support her claims, but that the question
before the court is whether discovery is necessary to resolve
the pending motion to dismiss. Id. Defendant submits
that Plaintiff fails to provide a basis for discovery in the
amended complaint and has no factual basis to challenge its
reinvestigation procedures. Id. at 5-6. Defendant
further submits that Plaintiff fails to allege any facts
showing an injury sufficient for Article III standing.
Court has reviewed all briefing on Defendant's motion to
dismiss. The Court finds that, while discovery is necessary
to resolve the claims themselves, discovery is not ...