United States District Court, D. Nevada
J. ALEREGTS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Stay Discovery
(ECF No. 80), filed on November 14, 2019. Also before the
Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Hold in Abeyance
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 77), filed on
October 25, 2019, Motion to Compel Discovery (ECF No. 82),
filed on November 21, 2019, and Motion for Leave to File
Exhibits to Motion to Compel (ECF No. 86), filed on December
11, 2019. The Court also considered the response and reply
briefing associated with the above Motions. (ECF No. 79, 81,
83, 84, 85, and 87).
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. 70), 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 the Motion has been fully
briefed and if granted, this case may be dismissed in its
entirety. Additionally, discovery is expensive and resolving
issues of immunity at the earliest possible stage of
litigation is important. As such, the Court finds this is a
case where a temporary stay of discovery will further the
goal of judicial economy. The Court will therefore deny
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (ECF No. 82) and Motion for
Leave to File Exhibits in Support of the Motion to Compel
(ECF No. 86) as moot given that discovery is stayed.
Similarly, the Court does not find it warranted to hold the
Motion to Dismiss until after a meet and confer can be
conducted with Plaintiff as requested by Plaintiffs Motion
(ECF No. 77). Therefore, the Court will likewise deny that
Motion in order for it to expeditiously decide this matter on
THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Hold in Abeyance
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 77) is
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Stay Discovery
(ECF No. 80) is granted.
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Discovery
(ECF No. 82) is denied as moot.
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File
Exhibits to Motion to Compel ...