United States District Court, D. Nevada
HOFFMAN, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
before the court is defendant Gerald D. Colvin's motion
to stay discovery and for a protective order (ECF Nos. 91,
92), filed on May 7, 2019. The motion is unopposed.
parties are familiar with the facts of this case and the
court will not repeat them here except as necessary. Colvin
moves to stay discovery pending the court's decision on
his motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process
under Rule 12(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
(ECF No. 79). The motion also requests dismissal on
other grounds, including lack of personal jurisdiction and
failure to state a claim. Colvin argues that the motion to
dismiss is dispositive regarding his participation in the
case and presents key issues of the court's jurisdiction.
Colvin also notes that Hayden has commenced serving written
requests for admissions although the parties have not had a
Rule 26(f) conference. Colvin met and conferred with Hayden
regarding the procedural defects related to the premature
requests for admissions, scheduling of a Rule 26(f)
conference, and potentially staying discovery, but the
parties were unable to reach an agreement on these issues.
Finally, Colvin requests that the court exercise its inherent
authority to impose monetary sanctions against Hayden for
what Colvin argues is bad faith litigation conduct. Hayden
did not oppose the motion, which constitutes a consent to the
granting of the motion under Local Rule 7-2(d).
have broad discretionary power to control discovery,
including the decision to stay discovery. See e.g.,
Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th
Cir. 1988). When evaluating whether to stay discovery, the
court considers the goal of Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, which directs that the rule must be
“construed and administered to secure the just, speedy,
and inexpensive determination of every action.”
Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 602 (D.
Nev. 2011) (citation omitted). But the Rules do not provide
for an automatic stay of discovery when a potentially
dispositive motion is pending. Id. at 600-01. Thus,
a pending dispositive motion “is not ordinarily a
situation that in and of itself would warrant a stay of
discovery.” Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda
Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997) (quotation
omitted). Nor does the fact that “discovery may involve
some inconvenience and expense” automatically warrant a
stay of discovery. Id.
determining whether to stay discovery, the court considers
whether (1) the pending motion is potentially dispositive of
the entire case, or at least of the issue on which discovery
is sought; and (2) the potentially dispositive motion can be
decided without additional discovery. Ministerio Roca
Solida v. U.S. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, 288
F.R.D. 500, 506 (D. Nev. 2013). This analysis requires the
court to take a “preliminary peek” at the
potentially dispositive motion. Tradebay, 278 F.R.D.
at 603. This assessment is meant not to prejudge a
motion's outcome but, rather, to accomplish the cost- and
time-saving objectives of Rule 1 by evaluating the justice of
either permitting or delaying discovery. Id. A court
may stay discovery when it is convinced that the plaintiff
will be unable to state a claim for relief. Turner,
175 F.R.D. at 555. Ultimately, the party seeking the stay
“carries the heavy burden of making a ‘strong
showing' why discovery should be denied.”
Id. at 556 (quotation omitted).
the court has taken a preliminary peek at Colvin's
pending motion to dismiss (ECF No. 79) and is convinced it
likely will be granted. Given that the motion to dismiss
implicates the validity of service of process and the
court's jurisdiction over Colvin, the court finds it
would be inefficient to engage in discovery before these
threshold jurisdictional issues are resolved. The court in
its discretion therefore will stay discovery pending the
outcome of the motion to dismiss.
Colvin's request for sanctions under the court's
inherent authority, the court denies the motion without
prejudice. But Hayden is once again advised that although the
court will liberally construe his filings given that he is
not represented by an attorney, he nevertheless is required
to follow the same rules of procedure that govern other
litigants. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th
Cir. 1995). Hayden further is advised that under Rule
26(d)(1), “[a] party may not seek discovery from any
source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule
26(f), except in a proceeding exempted from initial
disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or when authorized by
these rules, by stipulation, or by court order.” The
court will look with disfavor on any future filings that do
not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the
court's local rules.
THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant Gerald D. Colvin's
motion to stay discovery and for a protective order (ECF Nos.
91, 92) is GRANTED in part and is DENIED in part as stated in
 The motion to dismiss (ECF No. 79) is
pending before the United States district judge assigned to
this case and will be ...