Clark County, et al. v. United States District Court

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 Plaintiff(s), Order 7] [Docket No. 109] Clark County, et al., 9 Defendant(s).

10 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to stay discovery pending resolution of 11] their motions to dismiss. Docket No. 109; Docket No. 112 (joinder).! Plaintiff filed a response.

12 Docket No. 117.2 Defendants filed a reply. Docket No. 118. Having considered the governing 13} standards, Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581-83 (D. Nev. 2013), the Court 14} finds that a stay of discovery is warranted.> Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion 15] to stay discovery. If resolution of the motions to dismiss does not result in termination of this case, 16] the parties must file a joint proposed discovery schedule within 21 days of the issuance of the 17] order(s) resolving the motions to dismiss.

18 IT IS SO ORDERED.

19 Dated: January 22, 2026 20 A Eo Nancy J.Ko 21 United States Magistrate Judge 23 ' The underlying motions to dismiss have been fully briefed.

24 The Court liberally construes the filings of pro se litigants, particularly those who are prisoners bringing civil rights claims. Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2013). > Conducting the preliminary peek puts the undersigned in an awkward position because 26] the assigned district judge will decide the underlying motions 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 27| undersigned’s “preliminary peek” at the merits of the motions to dismiss is not intended to prejudice their outcome. See id. The undersigned carefully reviewed the arguments presented in the underlying motions and related briefing, but will not provide discussion of the merits herein.