1

2

3

4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7

8 ALON NEIMAN, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01824-JAD-NJK 9 Plaintiffs, Order 10 v. [Docket No. 12] 11 GAVRIEL BARAZANI, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to stay discovery pending resolution of 14 their motion to dismiss. Docket No. 12; see also Docket No. 6 (motion to dismiss). No response 15 was filed. See Docket. The motion to stay discovery is properly resolved without a hearing. See 16 Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons discussed below, the motion to stay discovery is GRANTED. 17 The Court has broad discretionary power to control discovery. See, e.g., Little v. City of 18 Seattle,

(9th Cir. 1988). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide 19 for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” 20 Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc.,

(D. Nev. 2011). Discovery should proceed 21 absent a “strong showing” to the contrary. Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175

, 556 (D. Nev. 1997). The case law in this District makes clear that requests to stay 23 discovery may be granted when: (1) the underlying motion is potentially dispositive in scope and 24 effect; (2) the underlying motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court 25 has taken a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the underlying motion and is convinced that the 26 plaintiff will be unable to prevail. Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green,

(D. Nev. 27 2013). The Court is guided in its analysis by the objectives in Rule 1 to secure a just, speedy, and 28 inexpensive determination of cases. Tradebay,

. ] Considering the governing standards, the Court finds that a stay of discovery is appropriate in this case. As to the first two requirements, the motion to dismiss is potentially dispositive of 3] this case and it can be decided without discovery. As to the third requirement, the undersigned’s evaluation of the motion to dismiss reveals that it is sufficiently meritorious to justify a stay of 5|| discovery.' 6 Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to stay discovery is GRANTED. Docket No. 12. In the 7|| event resolution of Defendants’ motion to dismiss does not result in the termination of this case, a 8|| joint discovery plan must be filed within 14 days of the issuance of such order. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: January 11,

] = Z fa ~~, 12 Unite Stare Nin trate Judge Hagis g 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ' 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 26] merits. See Tradebay,

. The undersigned’s “preliminary peek” at the merits of that motion is not intended to prejudice its outcome. See

As a result, the undersigned will not 27| provide a lengthy discussion of the merits of the pending motion to dismiss in this instance. Nonetheless, the undersigned has carefully reviewed the arguments presented in the motion to 28] dismiss and subsequent briefing.