Opinion
2:22-cv-01046-CDS-NJK
10-11-2022
GAIA ETHNOBOTANICAL, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. T1 PAYMENTS LLC, et al., Defendants.
ORDER [DOCKET NO. 45]
NANCY J. KOPPE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
In the quest to appropriately seek a stay of discovery in this case, the Sisyphean boulder rolls down the hill once again.
The Court has already identified in this case the means and standards for seeking a stay of discovery. Docket No. 43 at 1 (citing Kor Media Grp., LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D.' Nev. 2013) as providing the standards for seeking a stay of discovery pending resolution of Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and citing Hologram USA, Inc. v. Pulse Evolution Corp., 2015 WL 1600768, at *1 (D. Nev. Apr. 8, 2015) as providing the standards for seeking a stay of discovery' pending resolution of Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss). And, yet, the parties filed a joint motion to stay discovery addressing a different analysis. See Docket No. 45.1
The joint motion purports to address the “U.S. District Court of Nevada's seven-prong test.” Docket No. 45 at 6. Nowhere in the joint motion do the parties cite cases from this District applying this “seven-prong test.” Indeed, this “seven-prong test” has been identified and rejected by judges in this District. See, e.g., Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 602-03 (D. Nev.' 2011) (Leen, J.) (identifying the seven-prong test, but then proceeding to reject it because “[t]his court is persuaded that the standard enunciated by Judges Reed and Hunt in Twin City and Turner should apply in evaluating whether a stay of discovery is appropriate while a dispositive motion is pending”); Ministerio Roca Solida v. U.S. Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, 288 F.R.D. 500, 504 (D. Nev. 2013) (Ferenbach, J.) (same).
Because that joint motion does not address the governing standards established in this District, it is DENIED without prejudice. Any renewed request must be filed by October 14, 2022, and must address the governing standards. Particularly given the guidance provided, the Court will not consider these requests ad infinitum. This will be the final opportunity to seek a stay of discovery pending the dispositive motions.
The Court again cautions counsel that they must promptly familiarize themselves with the practices of this District. See also Docket No. 43 at 2 n.3.
IT IS SO ORDERED.