Opinion
2:21-cv-00677-GMN-NJK
04-26-2022
JAMES COBB, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants.
ORDER
[DOCKET NO. 20]
NANCY J. KOPPE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pending before the Court is Defendant's motion to stay discovery, which is unopposed. Docket No. 20. The Court does not require a hearing on the motion. See Local Rule 78-1.
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).
Defendant seeks a stay of discovery pending resolution of its motion seeking sanctions for alleged discovery violations. See Docket No. 19. A sufficient showing has not been made that a stay of discovery is warranted. It is counterintuitive to issue an order stopping discovery predicated on an argument that an opposing party has not been engaging in discovery. Indeed, in the event the opposing party eventually engages in discovery, albeit in belated fashion, such efforts may be pertinent to whether sanctions are imposed and, if so, which sanctions are imposed. Cf. United States ex rel. Wiltec Guam, Inc. v. Kahaluu Constr. Co., 857 F.2d 600, 604 (9th Cir. 1988).
A motion to stay discovery is typically filed pending resolution of a motion to dismiss, which is by its nature designed to enable a challenge to the pleadings without the need to obtain discovery. Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011).
Accordingly, the motion to stay discovery is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.