1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 WILLIAM WADE, Case No. 2:20-cv-02031-RFB-DJA

7 Plaintiff,

8 v. ORDER

9 RICHLAND HOLDINGS, INC., et al.,

10 Defendants.

11 Presently before the Court is Defendant Richland Holdings Inc.’s Motion to Stay 12 Discovery (ECF No. 15), filed on February 9, 2021. The Court denied expedited treatment on 13 February 10, 2021, but stayed the noticed deposition and written discovery requests at issue. 14 (ECF No. 17). Plaintiff filed a Response (ECF No. 21) on March 2, 2021 and Defendant filed a 15 Reply (ECF No. 22) on March 16, 2021. The Court finds this matter properly resolved without a 16 hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. 17 Courts have broad discretionary power to control discovery. See, e.g., Little v. City of 18 Seattle,

(9th Cir. 1988). In deciding whether to grant a stay of discovery, the 19 Court is guided by the objectives of Rule 1 to ensure a just, speedy, and inexpensive 20 determination of every action. See Kidneigh v. Tournament One Corp.,

, at *2 21 (D. Nev. May 1, 2013). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or 22 blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” Tradebay, LLC v. 23 eBay, Inc.,

(D. Nev. 2011). However, preliminary issues such as 24 jurisdiction, venue, or immunity are common situations that may justify a stay. See Twin City 25 Fire Ins. v. Employers of Wausau,

(D. Nev. 1989); see also Kabo Tools Co. v. 26 Porauto Indus. Co.,

, at *1 (D. Nev. Oct. 31, 2013) (granting stay based on 27 alleged lack of personal jurisdiction); Ministerio Roca Solida v. U.S. Dep’t of Fish & Wildlife, 1

(D. Nev. 2013) (granting stay based in part on alleged lack of subject matter 2 jurisdiction). Further, motions to stay discovery pending resolution of a dispositive motion may 3 be granted when: (1) the pending motion is potentially dispositive; (2) the potentially dispositive 4 motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a “preliminary 5 peek” at the merits of the potentially dispositive motion to evaluate the likelihood of dismissal. 6 See Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green,

(D. Nev. 2013). 7 A party seeking to stay discovery pending resolution of a potentially dispositive motion 8 bears the heavy burden of establishing that discovery should be stayed. See, e.g., Turner 9 Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Tracinda Corp.,

(D. Nev. 1997) (noting that a 10 stay of discovery may be appropriate where the complaint was “utterly frivolous, or filed merely 11 for settlement value.”); Blankenship v. Hearst Corp.,

(9th Cir. 1975). When 12 deciding whether to issue a stay, a court must take a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the 13 dispositive motion pending in the case. Tradebay,

. In doing so, a court 14 must consider whether the pending motion is potentially dispositive of the entire case, and 15 whether that motion can be decided without additional discovery.

This “preliminary peek” is 16 not intended to prejudge the outcome, but to evaluate the propriety of a stay of discovery “with 17 the goal of accomplishing the objectives of Rule 1.”

(citation omitted). That discovery may 18 involve inconvenience and expense is not sufficient, standing alone, to support a stay of 19 discovery. Turner Broadcasting,

. An overly lenient standard for granting 20 requests to stay would result in unnecessary delay in many cases. 21 After taking a preliminary peek at the pending Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5) and 22 associated briefing, the Court finds that Defendant has carried its heavy burden of establishing 23 that discovery should be stayed. The issues before the Court in the pending motion to dismiss do 24 not require further discovery and are dispositive of the entire case. Additionally, discovery is 25 expensive and resolving issues of statute of limitations at the earliest possible stage of litigation is 26 important. The Court is not convinced that Plaintiff will survive Defendant’s challenge, but 27 notes, of course, that its view “may be very different than how the assigned district judge will see 1 Nev. Oct. 10, 2012). As such, the Court finds this is a case where a temporary stay of discovery 2 will further the goal of judicial economy. 3 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Richland Holdings Inc.’s Motion to Stay 4 Discovery (ECF No. 15) is granted. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in the event that the motion to dismiss is not granted in 6 full, the parties shall file a stipulated proposed discovery plan and scheduling order no later than 7 14 days after a decision on the pending motion to dismiss (ECF No. 5) is issued by the court. 8 9 DATED: March 25, 2021.

10

11 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27