United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER [DOCKET NOS. 37, 38]
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. 37. The Court has
considered Defendant's motion, Plaintiff's response,
and Defendant's reply. Docket Nos. 37, 43, 52. Also
pending before the Court is Defendant's motion for a
protective order. Docket No. 38. The Court has considered
Defendant's motion, Plaintiff's response, and
Defendant's reply. Docket Nos. 38, 44, 53. The motions
are properly resolved without a hearing. See Local
brought this action on January 9, 2019, and filed an amended
complaint on March 18, 2019. Docket Nos. 1, 26. Plaintiff
alleges numerous violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(“FRCA”) and the Nevada Revised Statues
concerning her credit information and her Chapter 7
bankruptcy filing. Docket No. 26 at 13-32. Specifically,
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Experian violated Section
1681 of the FCRA as well as NRS Section 598 in (1)
misreporting credit information; (2) misreporting bankruptcy
inclusion dates; and (3) supressing positive data leading to
the production of an incomplete report. Id.
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. 37 at
6. In response, Plaintiff concedes that Defendant's
motion to dismiss relates to all of her pending claims.
Docket No. 43 at 8.
the Court finds that Defendant's motion to dismiss is
potentially dispositive of the instant case.
Need for Additional Discovery
submits that its pending motion to dismiss does not require
any discovery to be resolved. Docket No. 37 at 11. Defendant
submits that its motion to dismiss argues that Plaintiff
fails to satisfy the elements of her claims because she (1)
fails to allege any actionable inaccuracy in her disclosure;
(2) fails to allege that any purportedly inaccurate
information was every included in a consumer report sent to a
third party; (3) fails to allege that that Defendant's
reinvestigation was unreasonable, or that she provided a
statement of dispute after receiving the reinvestigation
results; and (4) fails to allege that Defendant's
disclosures did not permit her to evaluate the accuracy of
her credit information that is furnished to third parties in
credit reports. Id. at 6-14. Defendant further
submits that Plaintiff lacks an injury sufficient to confer
Article III standing to bring those claims. Id. at
4. Defendant submits, therefore, that discovery is
unnecessary to resolve its motion to dismiss. Id. at
response, Plaintiff submits that discovery is required on her
claims. Docket No. 43 at 8. 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
necessary because Defendant has been concealing additional,
critical policy documents for years and that those documents
and depositions will provide explanations for Defendant's
actions in reinvestigating Plaintiff's disputes.
Id. at 9. Plaintiff submits that discovery is
relevant to her disclosure and reinvestigation claims,
especially on credit information and credit scoring.
Id. at 9-11.
reply, Defendant submits that discovery is neither necessary
nor appropriate to resolve the motion to dismiss. Docket No.
52 at 4. Defendant submits that a stay of discovery is
appropriate here because Plaintiff fails to allege any injury
sufficient for Article III standing and fails to plead her
claims as a matter of law. Id. at 3-4. Defendant
further submits that, while Plaintiff insists on discovery to
support her claims, the question before the court is whether
discovery is necessary to resolve the pending motion to
dismiss. Id. at 5-6.
Court has reviewed all briefing on Defendant's motion to
dismiss. The Court finds that, while discovery is necessary
to resolve the claims themselves, it is not ...