1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 Ammar Harris, Case No. 2:22-cv-00560-RFB-NJK Plaintiff(s), Order g Vv. [Docket Nos. 109, 115] 9 Clark County, et al., 10 Defendant(s). 1] Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to stay discovery pending resolution of 12] their motions to dismiss. Docket No. 109; Docket No. 112 (joinder). In light of an extension 13} provided to Plaintiff, two of the underlying motions to dismiss have not yet been fully briefed. See 141 Docket No. 121. The Court has broad discretionary power to control discovery. See, e.g., Little v. City of Seattle,

(9th Cir. 1988). Resolving a motion to stay discovery involves 16] evaluating the arguments presented in the underlying motion to dismiss and subsequent briefing, Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green,

(D. Nev. 2013), so courts generally defer 18} ruling on a motion to stay discovery until the briefing is complete on the underlying motion to 19} dismiss, see V5 Techs., LLC v. Switch, Ltd., 2017 U.S. Dist. Lexis 174971, at *1-2 (D. Nev. Oct. 20] 23, 2017). Accordingly, the Court DEFERS ruling on the motion to stay discovery. Docket No. 21] 109. The Court also STAYS discovery on an interim basis pending resolution of the motion to 22|| stay discovery. Cf V5 Technologies, 2017 U.S. Dist. Lexis 174971, at *1-2 (staying discovery on 23]| an interim basis to allow underlying motion to dismiss to be fully briefed). In light of this ruling, 24] the Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff's motion for initial disclosures. Docket No. 115. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: December 23, 2025 Nancy J. Koppe □ 28 United States Magistrate Judge