Filed: Dec. 18, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 18, 2017
Summary: ORDER NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to stay discovery pending resolution of its motion for summary judgment. Docket No. 74; see also Docket No. 14 (motion for summary judgment). Defendant filed a response in opposition, and Plaintiff filed a reply. Docket Nos. 83, 84. The Court held a hearing on the motion on December 18, 2017. For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES the motion to stay discovery and ORDERS the parties to f
Summary: ORDER NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to stay discovery pending resolution of its motion for summary judgment. Docket No. 74; see also Docket No. 14 (motion for summary judgment). Defendant filed a response in opposition, and Plaintiff filed a reply. Docket Nos. 83, 84. The Court held a hearing on the motion on December 18, 2017. For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES the motion to stay discovery and ORDERS the parties to fi..
More
ORDER
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to stay discovery pending resolution of its motion for summary judgment. Docket No. 74; see also Docket No. 14 (motion for summary judgment). Defendant filed a response in opposition, and Plaintiff filed a reply. Docket Nos. 83, 84. The Court held a hearing on the motion on December 18, 2017. For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES the motion to stay discovery and ORDERS the parties to file a joint proposed discovery plan by December 28, 2017.
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 dispositive relief will be ordered. See Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013).1
A stay of discovery is not appropriate in this case. Indeed, Plaintiff failed to show as a threshold matter that its motion for summary judgment is case-dispositive in scope. As Defendant points out, that motion addresses only some of the 84 causes of action in this case and does not address any affirmative defenses. A stay of all discovery is not warranted in light of the non-dispositive nature of the motion.2
Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion to stay discovery and ORDERS the parties to file a joint proposed discovery plan by December 28, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
