Henry v. Dovenmuehle Mortgage, 2:19-cv-00360-MMD-NJK. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20190618e10
Visitors: 18
Filed: Jun. 17, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 17, 2019
Summary: Order [Docket No. 37]. NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Defendant Experian's motion to stay discovery pending resolution of its motion to dismiss. Docket No. 37; see also Docket No. 36 (motion to dismiss). Although the motion to dismiss has been briefed, no response has been filed to the motion to stay discovery and the deadline for doing so has expired. The motion is properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. Motions to stay discovery have
Summary: Order [Docket No. 37]. NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Defendant Experian's motion to stay discovery pending resolution of its motion to dismiss. Docket No. 37; see also Docket No. 36 (motion to dismiss). Although the motion to dismiss has been briefed, no response has been filed to the motion to stay discovery and the deadline for doing so has expired. The motion is properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. Motions to stay discovery have ..
More
Order
[Docket No. 37].
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is Defendant Experian's motion to stay discovery pending resolution of its motion to dismiss. Docket No. 37; see also Docket No. 36 (motion to dismiss). Although the motion to dismiss has been briefed, no response has been filed to the motion to stay discovery and the deadline for doing so has expired. The motion is properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. Motions to stay discovery have been granted in other cases presenting substantially similar circumstances. See, e.g., Mintun v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 2019 WL 2130134 (D. Nev. May 15, 2019). The Court is persuaded that the same result should be reached in this case, as well.1
Accordingly, for good cause shown, the motion to stay discovery is GRANTED. To the extent resolution of the motion to dismiss does not result in termination of Experian as a party to this case, a joint proposed discovery plan must be filed within 14 days of the resolution of that motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The Court finds herein that Experian is entitled to a stay of discovery based on its motion to dismiss. No other defendant has joined in the motion to dismiss or the motion to stay discovery and, as such, discovery is not stayed with respect to any other defendant. Cf. White v. American Tobacco Co., 125 F.R.D. 508, 509 (D. Nev. 1989). Nothing herein should be construed as prohibiting the filing of a request to extend the scope of the stay of discovery, however. The Court expresses no opinion on such a request.
Source: Leagle
