United States District Court, D. Nevada
J. ALBREGTS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
plaintiff Reina Wood-Jimenez filed a Motion for Immediate
Relief (ECF No. 33) on September 23, 2019. It appears to be
an argument she wishes to make during trial. As such, the
Court will deny it without prejudice given that it is not
supported by points and authorities and is not a proper
motion for relief at this time.
Defendant DMV filed a Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 37)
on September 26, 2019. Plaintiff filed a Proposed Discovery
Plan and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 38) on October 10, 2019,
to which Defendant filed a Notice of Objection (ECF No. 41)
on October 15, 2019.
have broad discretionary power to control discovery. See,
e.g., Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th
Cir.1988). 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.
See Kidneigh v. Tournament One Corp., 2013 WL
1855764, at *2 (D. Nev. May 1, 2013). “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). However,
preliminary issues such as jurisdiction, venue, or immunity
are common situations that may justify a stay. See Twin
City Fire Ins. v. Employers of Wausau, 124
F.R.D. 653 (D. Nev. 1989); see also Kabo Tools Co. v.
Porauto Indus. Co., 2013 WL 5947138, at *1 (D. Nev. Oct.
31, 2013) (granting stay based on alleged lack of personal
jurisdiction); Ministerio Roca Solida v. U.S. Dep't
of Fish & Wildlife, 288 F.R.D. 500, 506 (D. Nev.
2013) (granting stay based in part on alleged lack of subject
matter jurisdiction). Further, 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).
seeking to stay discovery pending resolution of a potentially
dispositive motion bears the heavy burden of establishing
that discovery should be stayed. See, e.g., Turner
Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D.
554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997) (noting that a stay of discovery may
be appropriate where the complaint was “utterly
frivolous, or filed merely for settlement value.”);
Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th
Cir. 1975). When deciding whether to issue a stay, a court
must take a “preliminary peek” at the merits of
the dispositive motion pending in the case.
Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 602-603. In doing so, a
court must consider whether the pending motion is potentially
dispositive of the entire case, and whether that motion can
be decided without additional discovery. Id. This
“preliminary peek” is not intended to prejudge
the outcome, but to evaluate the propriety of a stay of
discovery “with the goal of accomplishing the
objectives of Rule 1.” Id. (citation omitted).
That discovery may involve inconvenience and expense is not
sufficient, standing alone, to support a stay of discovery.
Turner Broadcasting, 175 F.R.D. at 556. An overly
lenient standard for granting requests to stay would result
in unnecessary delay in many cases.
taking a preliminary peek at the pending motion to dismiss
(ECF No. 20), the Court finds that Defendant has carried its
heavy burden of establishing that discovery should be stayed.
The issues before the Court in the pending motion to dismiss
do not require further discovery as they have been fully
briefed. Additionally, discovery is expensive and resolving
issues of immunity at the earliest possible stage of
litigation is important. Further, the issues in pending
motion to dismiss are potentially dispositive of the entire
case. The gravamen of Defendant's motion to dismiss is
that the DMV has Eleventh Amendment immunity, Plaintiff has
not served the head of the DMV, and Plaintiff is unable to
state a claim for relief. The Court is not convinced that
Plaintiff will survive Defendant's jurisdictional and
immunity challenges, but notes, of course, that its view of
“may be very different than how the assigned district
judge will see” the case. AMC Fabrication, Inc. v.
KRD Trucking W., Inc., 2012 WL 4846152, *4 (D. Nev. Oct.
10, 2012). As such, the Court finds this is a case where a
temporary stay of discovery will further the goal of judicial
HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Immediate Relief
(ECF No. 33) is denied without prejudice.
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Stay Discovery
(ECF No. 37) is granted.
FURTHER ORDERED that in the event the motion to dismiss is
not granted in full, the parties shall file a stipulated
proposed discovery plan and scheduling order no later than
seven days after a decision on ...