Drye v. Glatfelter Claims Management, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA ROBERT DRYE, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00943-RFB-NJK Plaintiffs, Order v. [Docket No. 17] GLATFELTER CLAIMS MANAGEMENT, INC., et al., Defendants.

13 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulation to stay discovery pending resolution of Defendant Glatfelter Claims Management, Inc.’s motion to dismiss. Docket No. 17. See also Docket No. 9 (motion to dismiss).

16 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.”

19 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 21 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 Grp., LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 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.

1 A stay of discovery is warranted in this case. The parties agree that the pending motion to dismiss is potentially case dispositive and that it can be resolved without additional discovery.

Docket No. 17 at 3. See also Docket No. 9 (motion to dismiss). Additionally, the undersigned’s 4| evaluation of the motion to dismiss reveals that it is sufficiently meritorious to justify a stay of discovery.!

6 Accordingly, the stipulation to stay discovery is GRANTED. Docket No. 17. In the event resolution of the motion to dismiss does not result in the termination of this case, a joint proposed 8|| discovery plan must be filed no later than 14 days after the issuance of the order resolving the 9} motion to dismiss at Docket No. 9.

10 IT IS SO ORDERED.

11 Dated: July 31, 2023 2 es Za Nancy JKoppe 13 United States Magistrate Judge 25] ———“ Conducting this preliminary peek puts the undersigned in an awkward position because the 26]| 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. This “preliminary peek” at the merits of the underlying 27] 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. Nonetheless, the undersigned 28] has carefully reviewed the arguments presented in the underlying motion.