1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * *

4 ANGELA ZIVE, et al., Case No. 3:24-CV-00424-ART-CLB

5 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY ON EXTRA- 6 v. CONTRACTUAL CLAIMS AND DENYING MOTION REGARDING DISCOVERY 7 GEICO ADVANTAGE INSURANCE DISPUTE COMPANY, 8 [ECF Nos. 14, 15] Defendant. 9 Currently pending before the Court are two motions. First, Plaintiffs Angela Zive 10 and Justin Zive (collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”) filed a motion regarding discovery 11 dispute. (ECF No. 14.) Defendant GEICO Advantage Insurance Company’s (“GEICO”) 12 responded to the motion. (ECF No. 17.) Second, is GEICO’s motion to stay discovery. 13 (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiffs responded, (ECF No. 19), and GEICO replied, (ECF No. 23).1 14 The Court has reviewed the relevant pleadings and papers, and, for the reasons set for 15 below, denies Plaintiffs’ motion regarding discovery dispute, and grants GEICO’s motion 16 to stay discovery. 17 To determine if a stay is appropriate pending the ruling on a motion to dismiss, a 18 court must consider the following factors: (1) whether the pending motion is potentially 19 dispositive of the case; (2) whether the motion can be decided without additional 20 discovery; and (3) whether the court is convinced that the plaintiff cannot state a claim for 21 relief. Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green,

(D. Nev. 2013).2 The Court 22 23 24 1 GEICO’s original motion to stay discovery asked to stay all discovery in this case (ECF No. 15), however, in GEICO’s reply, the request was narrowed to only a stay of 25 discovery as to the extra-contractual causes of action, which are at issue in the motion to dismiss, (ECF No. 23). 26 2 The undersigned follows the majority approach within the District when adjudicating motions to stay discovery—i.e., the preliminary peek framework outlined in 27 Kor Media—and expressly adopts the analysis from Judge Koppe’s recent order in Flynn v. Nevada,

(D. Nev. 2024), which rejects the minority “good cause” must take a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the underlying dispositive motion in order 2 to find whether the plaintiff can state a claim. Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc.,

| 597, 603 (D. Nev. 2011). The “preliminary peek” does not prejudge the outcome of the 4 motion; it merely evaluates whether an order staying discovery is warranted. /d. 5 In conducting its review, the Court also considers the goal of Federal Rule of Civil 6 | Procedure 1, which provides that the Rules should “be construed, administered, and 7 | employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive 8 | determination of every action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. With Rule 1 as its prime directive, the court must decide whether it is more just to speed the parties along in discovery while a 10| dispositive motion is pending or to delay discovery to accomplish the inexpensive 11| determination of the case. See Big City Dynasty v. FP Holdings, L.P.,

, 512 (D. Nev. 2020). 13 Having reviewed all the factors set forth above and after conducting a “preliminary peek” of the underlying motion, the Court finds that a stay on extra-contractual issues 15| pending resolution of the motion to dismiss, is appropriate in this case. Accordingly, 16 | GEICO’s motion to stay discovery, (ECF No. 15), is GRANTED. Discovery is stayed only 17| with respect to extra-contractual issues and discovery will otherwise proceed. Cf. 18| Tradebay,

(limited stays of discovery are proper where the pending 19| motion is “at least dispositive on the issue on which discovery is sought”). In the event 20 resolution of the motion to dismiss does not result in dismissal of the extra-contractual 21 claims, the parties shall submit an amended joint proposed discovery plan within 14 days 22 | of resolution of that motion. 23 Finally, in light of the limited stay of discovery, Plaintiffs’ motion regarding 24 discovery dispute, (ECF No. 14), is DENIED. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 DATED: January 16, 2025 . 27 28 UNITED STATES\MAGISTRATE JUDGE