1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 ETHAN ASCH, Case No. 2:23-cv-01152-JCM-EJY

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 PREMIER PATIO HEATING SPECIALIST LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; 8 BRUCE STEVEN PRICE, a Nevada resident; ROE DELIVERY COMPANY, a Nevada 9 entity; DOE INDIVIDUALS 1-10 and ROE BUSINESS or GOVERNMENTAL 10 ENTITIES 1-10, inclusive,

11 Defendants.

12 13 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Discovery. ECF No. 13. The Court 14 reviewed the Motion, the Opposition (ECF No. 18), and the Reply (ECF No. 19). Also pending is 15 Defendant’s Countermotion to Compel (also ECF No. 18) to which Plaintiff responded (ECF No. 16 20). 17 Courts have broad discretion to control discovery. Little v. City of Seattle,

, 685 18 (9th Cir. 1988). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket stays 19 of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278

, 600 (D. Nev. 2011). A pending dispositive motion “is not ordinarily a situation that in 21 and of itself would warrant a stay of discovery.” Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175

, 556 (D. Nev. 1997) (quotation omitted). Nor does the fact that “discovery may involve 23 some inconvenience and expense” automatically lead to a stay of discovery.

24 When deciding whether to grant a discovery stay, courts are often guided by Rule 1 of the 25 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requiring the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every 26 action. Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 602-03. Generally, a motion to stay discovery pending resolution 27 of other motions may be granted when: (1) the pending motion is potentially dispositive; (2) the 1 taken a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the potentially dispositive motion to evaluate the 2 likelihood of dismissal. Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green,

(D. Nev. 2013). The 3 party seeking a discovery stay bears the burden of establishing the stay is warranted. Kabo Tools 4 Co. v. Porauto Indus. Co., Ltd., 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 156928, at *1 (D. Nev. Oct. 31, 2013) (citing 5 Holiday Sys., Int’l of Nev. v. Vivarelli, Scharwz, and Assocs., 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 125542, at *5 6 (D. Nev. Sept. 5, 2012)). 7 The Motion to Remand, which is the basis upon which Plaintiff seeks a discovery stay, was 8 denied on September 6, 2023. ECF No. 21. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF 10 No. 13) is DENIED. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Countermotion (ECF No. 18) seeking 12 production of Plaintiff’s initial disclosures is GRANTED. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff must make his initial disclosures in compliance 14 with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(c) no later than September 15, 2023. 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Proposed Joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order 16 (ECF No. 14) is DENIED without prejudice as moot. 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the discovery period commences immediately such that 18 written and oral discovery may be propounded. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties must submit a revised proposed joint discovery 20 plan and scheduling order within fourteen (14) days of today’s date measuring the discovery period 21 from the same. 22 Dated this 8th day of September, 2023. 23

24 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27