Filed: Nov. 24, 2014
Latest Update: Nov. 24, 2014
Summary: ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY (Docket No. 76) NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge. Pending before the Court is Defendant Arena3D Industrial Illusion, LLC's ("Arena3D") motion to stay discovery. Docket No. 76. Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition and Arena3D filed a reply. Docket Nos. 79, 88. The Court finds the motion properly decided without oral argument. See Local Rule 78-2. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is GRANTED. Arena3D seeks an order staying discovery pend
Summary: ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY (Docket No. 76) NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge. Pending before the Court is Defendant Arena3D Industrial Illusion, LLC's ("Arena3D") motion to stay discovery. Docket No. 76. Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition and Arena3D filed a reply. Docket Nos. 79, 88. The Court finds the motion properly decided without oral argument. See Local Rule 78-2. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is GRANTED. Arena3D seeks an order staying discovery pendi..
More
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
(Docket No. 76)
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is Defendant Arena3D Industrial Illusion, LLC's ("Arena3D") motion to stay discovery. Docket No. 76. Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition and Arena3D filed a reply. Docket Nos. 79, 88. The Court finds the motion properly decided without oral argument. See Local Rule 78-2. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is GRANTED.
Arena3D seeks an order staying discovery pending resolution of, inter alia, its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.1 While the filing of a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction does not automatically result in an order staying discovery, such a motion "strongly favors a stay, or at a minimum, limitations on discovery until the question of jurisdiction is resolved." Kabo Tools Co. v. Porauto Indus. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 53570, *3 (D. Nev. Apr. 15, 2013) (quoting AMC Fabrication, Inc. v. KRD Trucking West, Inc., 2012 WL 4846152, *2 (D. Nev. Oct. 10, 2012)). Courts are more inclined to stay discovery pending resolution of such a motion because it presents a "critical preliminary question." Id. In this case, the undersigned has reviewed the briefing on the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and finds Arena3D's arguments to have sufficient weight to warrant staying discovery.2
Plaintiffs also argue that a complete stay of discovery is not warranted because jurisdictional discovery should be allowed. See Docket No. 79 at 6-7. In opposing the pending motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs have requested that the district judge grant jurisdictional discovery if he finds that the record is not sufficiently developed. See Docket No. 80 at 11-13. Thus, it is more prudent for the undersigned to defer the question of whether jurisdictional discovery is necessary to the assigned district judge in his determination of the merits of the pending motion to dismiss. See, e.g., AMC Fabrication, 2012 WL 4846152, at *4.3
For the reasons discussed above, the motion to stay discovery pending resolution of Arena3D's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is hereby GRANTED. This stay of discovery relates only to discovery propounded on or propounded by Defendant Arena3D. Discovery among the other parties shall continue. See, e.g., White v. American Tobacco Co., 125 F.R.D. 508, 509 (D. Nev. 1989) (denying motion to stay discovery against one defendant where motion to dismiss was filed by another defendant). In the event the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is not granted in full, within seven days of the issuance of the order resolving that motion, Plaintiffs and Arena3D shall file a joint status report.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
