Spurbeck v. Wyndham Worldwide

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA TANYA SPURBECK, 9 Case No.: 2:20-cv-00346-RFB-NJK Plaintiff(s), 10 Order v. 11 [Docket No. 12] WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP, INC., et al., 13 Defendant(s).

14 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to stay discovery pending resolution of its motion to dismiss. Docket No. 12; see also Docket No. 9 (motion to dismiss). Plaintiff filed a response in opposition. Docket No. 19.1 Defendant filed a reply. Docket No. 24. Discovery may be stayed when: (1) there is a pending motion that 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. 21 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013). Applying those standards here, the Court finds that a stay of discovery is appropriate.2 24 1 As a pro se litigant, the Court construes Plaintiff’s filings liberally. See, e.g., Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).

2 Conducting the preliminary peek puts the undersigned in an awkward position because the assigned district judge who will decide the motion to dismiss may have a different view of its merits. See Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 603 (D. Nev. 2011). The undersigned’s “preliminary peek” at the merits of that motion is not intended to prejudice its outcome. See id. As a result, the undersigned will not provide a lengthy discussion of the merits of the pending motion to dismiss in this instance.

1 Accordingly, the motion to stay discovery is GRANTED.

2 IT IS SO ORDERED.

3 Dated: April 13, 2020 Nancy J. Koppe\, 5 United States Magistrate Judge