1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 MIKE FIELDS, Case No. 2:21-cv-02102-CDS-EJY

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 MARLYN RAMIREZ,

8 Defendant.

9 10 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Stay of Discovery (ECF No. 25). The 11 Court has considered Defendant’s Motion, Plaintiff’s Opposition (ECF No. 27), and Defendant’s 12 Reply (ECF No. 28). Defendant’s moving papers fail to address the standard applicable to a motion 13 seeking a stay of discovery. Defendant instead states that she “filed a Motion to Dismiss challenging 14 the validity of the Plaintiff’s claim.” ECF No. 25 at 1. 15 “[F]iling a motion to dismiss does not automatically stay discovery in federal court.” 16 Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc.,

(D. Nev. 2011). Defendant, as the party seeking a stay 17 of discovery, carries the heavy burden of showing why discovery should not be allowed. Turner 18 Broadcasting Sys. v. Tracinda Corp.,

(D. Nev. 1997) (Internal citation omitted). 19 The single sentence offered by Defendant in support of her requested stay of discovery is an 20 insufficient basis to support her request. 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Stay of Discovery 22 (ECF No. 25) is DENIED. 23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant must meet and confer with counsel for Plaintiff 24 no later than May 13, 2022 for the purpose of finalizing and filing a joint discovery plan and 25 scheduling order. If the parties cannot come to an agreement on a joint proposed plan, each party 26 may file its own proposed discovery plan no later than May 16, 2022. 27 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s failure to participate in good faith in 2 preparation of the proposed joint discovery plan and scheduling order shall result in adoption of 3 Plaintiff’s proposed plan. 4 5 Dated this 5th day of May, 2022. 6

7 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27