Opinion
Case No. 2:17-cv-01260-APG-NJK
12-18-2017
AIG SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff(s), v. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant(s).
ORDER (Docket No. 74)
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).
In reply, Plaintiff suggests that these standards need not be met because Defendant has filed its own motion for summary judgment. Docket No. 84 at 2. The Court is not persuaded that such a filing obviates the need to meet the applicable standard.
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.
The failure to establish that the motion for summary judgment is case-dispositive alone dooms Plaintiff's motion to stay all discovery. As such, the Court need not address whether that motion can be decided without additional discovery and whether the Court is convinced that the motion will be granted. --------
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.
DATED: December 18, 2017
/s/_________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge