1

2

3

4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7

8 LINDSAY MARIE PERKINS, Case No.: 2:20-cv-01524-KJD-NJK 9 Plaintiff(s), Order 10 v. [Docket No. 16] 11 CREDIT ONE BANK, N.A., et al., 12 Defendant(s). 13 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to stay discovery pending resolution of its 14 motions to compel arbitration and to dismiss. Docket No. 11; see also Docket Nos. 5-6 (motions 15 to compel and dismiss). Plaintiff filed a response in opposition. Docket No. 14; see also Docket 16 No. 15 (errata). Defendant filed a reply. Docket No. 16. The motion is properly resolved without 17 a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons discussed below, the motion to stay discovery is 18 GRANTED. 19 The Court has broad discretionary power to control discovery. See, e.g., Little v. City of 20 Seattle,

(9th Cir. 1988). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide 21 for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” 22 Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc.,

(D. Nev. 2011). Discovery may be stayed when: 23 (1) there is a pending motion that is potentially dispositive; (2) the potentially dispositive motion 24 can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a “preliminary peek” at 25 the merits of the potentially dispositive motion and finds the motion sufficiently meritorious to 26 warrant a stay. See Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green,

(D. Nev. 2013). When 27 the underlying motion is one seeking to compel arbitration, a stay is appropriate when the 28 preliminary peek reveals that there is a reasonable possibility or probability that the district judge 1} will compel arbitration. See Shaughnessy v. Credit Acceptance Corp. of Nev., Inc.,

, at *2-3 (D. Nev. Nov. 28, 2007). Courts frequently stay discovery pending resolution 3] of a motion to compel arbitration. See, e.g., Mahamedi IP Law, LLP v. Paradice & Li, LLP, 2017 4] WL 2727874, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2017) (collecting cases). The Court is guided in its analysis 5|| by the objectives in Rule 1 to secure a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of cases. See 6|| Tradebay,

. 7 There is no dispute that the claims as to Defendant Credit One are subject to arbitration. 8|| Plaintiff instead asks that, notwithstanding the arbitrability of the claims against Credit One, she be permitted to conduct discovery in this case with respect to the currently unknown Doe 10|| Defendants. This argument was flatly rejected last month by United States District Judge James 11} C. Mahan, who held that such discovery was impermissible in a case in which the claims against 12|| Credit One were subject to arbitration. Merritt vy. Credit One Bank, N.A.,

, at 13] *1 (D. Nev. Sept. 28, 2020); accord Tucker v. Credit One Bank, N.A., 2020 U.S. Dist. Lexis 14]| 199659, at *2 (D. Nev. Oct. 27, 2020).! The Court has not been persuaded to chart a different course in this case. 16 Accordingly, the motion to stay discovery is GRANTED. To the extent resolution of the 17|| motion to compel and to dismiss does not result in the cessation of proceedings in this Court, the 18] parties must file a proposed joint discovery plan within 14 days of the issuance of that order. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: October 30, 2020 il 1 fo / i x is _ Nancy JaKoppe, 22 United StatesMagistrate Judge —___ ' In responding to the motion to stay discovery, Plaintiff seeks an order allowing her to conduct discovery to ascertain the identities of the Doe Defendants. See Docket No. 15 at 6-9 (quoting Crowley v. Bannister,

(9th Cir. 2013) and Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 25]| F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980)). As a threshold matter, parties are not permitted to present requests in an opposition brief. Local Rule IC 2-2(b). At any rate, the Court notes that such an order is 26] properly issued only where a showing is made that the Court likely has jurisdiction over the unknown defendants. E.g., Lik v. Doe,

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2020) 27 (collecting cases); Quad Int'l, Inc. v. Doe,

, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2013). Plaintiff has not sufficiently shown that this Court would have personal jurisdiction over the Doe 28|| Defendants in this case.