1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5

6 M.T. REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT, INC. Case No. 2:23-cv-00882-JAD-NJK 7 Plaintiff, Order 8 v. [Docket No. 36] 9

10 MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulation to stay discovery pending resolution of 14 Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Docket No. 36. See also Docket No. 8 (motion to dismiss). 15 The Court has broad discretionary power to control discovery. See, e.g., Little v. City of 16 Seattle,

(9th Cir. 1988). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide 17 for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” 18 Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc.,

(D. Nev. 2011). Discovery should proceed 19 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 21 discovery may be granted when: (1) the underlying motion is potentially dispositive in scope and 22 effect; (2) the underlying motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court 23 has taken a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the underlying motion and is convinced that the 24 plaintiff will be unable to prevail. Kor Media Grp., LLC v. Green,

(D. Nev. 25 2013). The Court is guided in its analysis by the objectives in Rule 1 to secure a just, speedy, and 26 inexpensive determination of cases. Tradebay,

. 27 A stay of discovery is warranted in this case. The parties agree that the pending motion to 28 dismiss is potentially case dispositive and that it can be resolved without additional discovery. 1} Docket No. 36 at 2. See also Docket No. 8 (motion to dismiss). Additionally, the undersigned’s 2} evaluation of the motion to dismiss reveals that it is sufficiently meritorious to justify a stay of discovery." 4 Accordingly, the stipulation to stay discovery is GRANTED. Docket No. 36. In the event 5]| resolution of the motion to dismiss does not result in the termination of this case, a joint proposed 6|| discovery plan must be filed no later than 14 days after the issuance of the order resolving the 7|| motion to dismiss at Docket No. 8. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: August 4, 2023 vy 10 ao 11 United S e gistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ——_ 1 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,

. This “preliminary peek” at the merits of the underlying 27] motion is not intended to prejudice its outcome. See

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.