1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10

11 SEAN SWENSON, Case No.: 2:19-cv-01639-JCM-NJK 12 Plaintiff(s), Order 13 v. [Docket No. 40] 14 GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, 15 Defendant(s). 16 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to stay discovery. Docket No. 40. The 17 motion relies on the standards applicable to staying a case (generally pending resolution of some 18 other case or proceeding). See, e.g., id. at 5-6 (addressing factors identified in CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 19

(9th Cir. 1962)). Defendant is not seeking to stay litigation, however, nor does 20 Defendant appear to be seeking to stay all discovery. Instead, Defendant appears to be seeking to 21 avoid (for the time-being) three depositions. Docket No. 40 at 3. It is unclear why Defendant is 22 seeking such relief under the standards for staying the case, rather than as a motion for protective 23 order under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1 Given that it appears the motion 24 is predicated on inapplicable legal standards, it is hereby DENIED without prejudice. 25 Any renewed motion seeking relief from the three depositions at issue must be filed no 26 later than July 31, 2020. Nothing herein prevents Defendant from seeking relief under the 27 1 The Court has a duty to apply the correct legal standards even when they are not identified 28 by the parties. Bateman v. United States Postal Serv.,

(9th Cir. 2000). 1|| standards articulated in CMAX. However, to the extent Defendant continues to believe those 2|| standards govern this dispute, then it must provide meaningful discussion in support of that position. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: July 28, 2020 Nancy J. Koppe\, 7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28