NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion to stay discovery. Docket No. 67. Defendants filed a response in opposition on October 16, 2017. Docket No. 74. No reply has been filed, and the deadline for doing so expired on October 23, 2017. See Local Rule 7-2(b). The Court finds the motion properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons discussed below, the motion to stay discovery is
The Court has broad discretionary power to control discovery. See, e.g., Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). "The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending." Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). The party seeking a stay carries the heavy burden of making a strong showing why discovery should be denied. See, e.g., Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997). The case law in this District makes clear that requests to stay all discovery may be granted when: (1) the pending motion is potentially dispositive; (2) the potentially dispositive motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken
a "preliminary peek" at the merits of the potentially dispositive motion and is convinced that the plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief. See Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013).
Plaintiffs failed to meet these standards.
Plaintiffs also point to the pendency of their motion to amend the complaint as grounds to stay discovery. Docket No. 67 at 13-14. In particular, Plaintiffs argue that such motion means that the current discovery deadlines will need to be extended. See id. at 14. Plaintiffs fail to explain why the Court should stop discovery based on its assertion that a pending motion will lead to the need for further discovery. Quite the contrary, given Plaintiffs' assertion that they "will need a significant amount of additional time to complete discovery," id. at 3, the Court is unclear why Plaintiffs have not filed a request to extend discovery deadlines. At any rate, discovery should proceed based on the current claims in the operative complaint and, in the event further amendment is allowed and such amendment requires additional time for discovery, the parties may seek appropriate relief at that time.
For the reasons outlined above, the motion to stay discovery is
IT IS SO ORDERED.