Dillon v. Correction Corporation of America

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA ROBERT J. DILLON, 8 Case No. 2:20-cv-02319-APG-NJK Plaintiff(s), 9 Order v. 10 [Docket No. 31] CORRECTION CORPORATION OF AMERICA, et al., 12 Defendant(s).

13 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to stay discovery pending resolution of their motion to dismiss. Docket No. 31; see also Docket No. 20 (motion to dismiss). Plaintiff did not respond to the motion to stay discovery, but he did respond to the motion to dismiss. See Docket No. 25. The motion to stay discovery is properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons discussed below, the motion to stay discovery is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

19 The Court has broad discretionary power to control discovery. See, e.g., Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.”

22 Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). Discovery should proceed absent a “strong showing” to the contrary. Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 24 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997). The case law in this District makes clear that requests to stay discovery may be granted when: (1) the underlying motion is potentially dispositive in scope and effect; (2) the underlying motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the underlying motion and is convinced that the plaintiff will be unable to prevail. Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 1} 2013). The Court is guided in its analysis by the objectives in Rule 1 to secure a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of cases. Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 602.

3 Defendants have not made the strong showing required for a complete stay of discovery.

4|| Particularly given the liberal pleading standards that apply to pro se prisoners bringing civil rights 5|| claims, Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2013), the undersigned is not 6|| convinced that Plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief.! As such, a case-wide stay of 7|| discovery is not warranted.

8 The Court notes, however, that Defendant Hininger is challenging the Court’s ability to 9] exercise personal jurisdiction over him. Docket No. 20 at 9-14. A challenge to personal jurisdiction is a critical threshold issue that strongly favors a stay or other limitations on discovery.

11} E.g., Hologram USA, Inc. v. Pulse Evolution Corp., 2015 WL 1600768, at *1 (D. Nev. Apr. 8, 12} 2015). Viewing the jurisdictional arguments presented by Defendant Hininger and the other 13|| applicable considerations, the Court finds that a stay is warranted as to any discovery involving Defendant Hininger.

15 Accordingly, the motion to stay discovery is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

16|| Discovery will proceed generally, but will be stayed as to Defendant Hininger only. The Court 17|| will issue a scheduling order concurrently herewith. Moreover, in the event resolution of the 18] motion to dismiss does not result in the dismissal of Defendant Hininger, a stipulation with 19} proposed deadlines as to Defendant Hininger must be filed within 14 days of the issuance of that order.

21 IT IS SO ORDERED.

22 Dated: August 6, 2021 Ue Nancy J. Koppe _ 24 United Si ates’ Magistrate Judge ' Conducting the preliminary peek puts the undersigned in an awkward position because the assigned district judge who will decide the underlying motion may have a different view of its merits. See Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 603. 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 underlying motion in this instance. Nonetheless, 28|| the undersigned has carefully reviewed the arguments presented in the underlying motion practice.