SCAP 9, LLC v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
SCAP 9, LLC v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
Trial Court Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 SCAP 9, LLC, Case No. 3:22-CV-00380-MMD-CLB 5 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT 6 v. 7 FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATION AUTHORITY, INC., 8 Defendant. 9 10 11 On September 6, 2022, the Court ordered the parties to file a Case 12 Management Report (“CMR”) addressing discovery related issues. (ECF No. 9.) On 13 September 27, 2022, the parties filed their CMR. (ECF No. 15.) In this joint filing, the 14 parties state that they “agree to wait for a ruling on the Motion to Dismiss before 15 engaging in discovery or disclosures required by the Court’s local rules and the Federal 16 Rules of Civil Procedure.” (Id.) 17 As the Court states in its Standing Order, (ECF No. 8), the filing of a motion 18 to dismiss does not stay discovery. Rather, the parties are required to comply with the 19 rules of discovery as required by the Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil 20 Procedure. See LR 26-1 et. seq.; Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26 et. seq. In short, a party cannot 21 simply refuse to engage in discovery due to the filing of a motion dismiss any more than 22 the parties can simply “agree” to forego the discovery mandated by the District of 23 Nevada’s Local Rules or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A stay of discovery is 24 only imposed if it is ordered the Court. 25 Generally, if a party believes discovery should be stayed pending a decision 26 on the motion to dismiss, the party is required to file a motion to stay that directly 27 addresses the factors articulated in Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green,
294 F.R.D. 579 28(D. Nev. 2013) (citing Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc.,
278 F.R.D. 597(D. Nev. 2011)). 1| If, however, the parties mutually agree a stay of discovery should be imposed 2| while a motion to dismiss is pending, the parties should file a _ stipulation requesting the Court order a stay of discovery. Such a stipulation should provide a detailed explanation for the stay requested and should set forth a deadline for the filing 5 | of a Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order in the event the motion to dismiss is denied. 6 Therefore, the parties are ORDERED to file a stipulation accompanied by 7 | a proposed order requesting a stay of discovery within 14 days of the date of this order which must provide a detailed explanation as to why a stay is proper and include a deadline for filing a Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order if the motion to dismiss is denied. " IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 DATED: September 27, 2022. 13 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
-2-
Reference
- Status
- Unknown