Verloncia Chabeaun Carr v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, et al.

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA VERLONCIA CHABEAUN CARR, 9 Case No. 2:25-cv-01701-GMN-NJK Plaintiff, 10 Order v. 11 [Docket No. 41] LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 Pending before the Court is Defendant RBR Management, LLC’s motion to stay discovery pending resolution of Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s amended complaint. Docket No. 41.1 Plaintiff filed a response. Docket No. 44. Defendant RBR Management, LLC filed a reply.

17 Docket No. 45.

18 Having considered the governing standards, Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 19 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013), the Court finds that a stay of discovery as to Defendant RBR Management, LLC is warranted.2 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to stay discovery.

21 Docket No. 41. If resolution of the motion to dismiss does not result in termination of this case The motion to dismiss is fully briefed. Docket Nos. 23, 25, 30.

2 Conducting the preliminary peek puts the undersigned in an awkward position because the assigned district judge will decide the underlying motion and may have a different view of the merits. See Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 603 (D. Nev. 2011). The undersigned’s “preliminary peek” at the merits of the motion for judgment on the pleadings is not intended to prejudice its outcome. See id. The undersigned carefully reviewed the arguments presented in the underlying motion and related briefing, but will not provide discussion of the merits herein.

1} against Defendant RBR Management, LLC, Defendant RBR Management, LLC must comply with 2|| the scheduling order previously issued by the Court. See Docket No. 34.

3 IT IS SO ORDERED.

4 Dated: January 6, 2026 a hen.

Nancy J. Koppe * 6 United States Magistrate Judge 1] 26 > Defendant misunderstands the Court’s clear order granting Defendant Circus Circus’ motion to stay discovery. Docket No. 41 at 7. As the Court also orders here, Defendant must 27] comply with the scheduling order if the resolution of the motion to dismiss does not result in termination of the case against Defendant. Such order does not, as Defendant claims, render the 28] stay of discovery illusory. See id.