Calvillo v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 2:19-cv-00277-RFB-NJK. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20190618e09
Visitors: 13
Filed: Jun. 17, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 17, 2019
Summary: Order [Docket Nos. 27, 28]. NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court are Defendant Experian's motions for protective order and to stay discovery pending resolution of its motion to dismiss. Docket Nos. 27, 28; see also Docket No. 19 (motion to dismiss). Plaintiff filed a response in opposition, and Experian filed a reply. Docket Nos. 44, 46. The motions are properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. Motions to stay discovery have been granted in other
Summary: Order [Docket Nos. 27, 28]. NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court are Defendant Experian's motions for protective order and to stay discovery pending resolution of its motion to dismiss. Docket Nos. 27, 28; see also Docket No. 19 (motion to dismiss). Plaintiff filed a response in opposition, and Experian filed a reply. Docket Nos. 44, 46. The motions are properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. Motions to stay discovery have been granted in other ..
More
Order
[Docket Nos. 27, 28].
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court are Defendant Experian's motions for protective order and to stay discovery pending resolution of its motion to dismiss. Docket Nos. 27, 28; see also Docket No. 19 (motion to dismiss). Plaintiff filed a response in opposition, and Experian filed a reply. Docket Nos. 44, 46. The motions are 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 motions for protective order and to stay discovery are GRANTED. To the extent resolution of the motion to dismiss does not result in termination of 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. Plaintiff makes a threshold argument that the motions should be denied because claims against Defendant Trans Union are not within the scope of the relief requested, such that discovery would proceed in piecemeal fashion. See Resp. at 5. A stipulation of dismissal has since been filed with respect to Trans Union. See Docket No. 52.
Source: Leagle
