Opinion
Case No. 2:15-cv-01338-GMN-CWH
03-09-2016
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORP., et al., Plaintiffs, v. SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, et al., Defendant.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' motion to stay discovery (doc. # 74), filed December 21, 2015, Defendant Las Vegas Development Group's response, filed January 11, 2016, and Defendant SFR Investment Pool 1, LLC's limited response, filed January 13, 2016. Defendant Nevada New Builds, LLC did not file a response. Also before the Court is Plaintiff's reply, filed January 21, 2016.
A court has broad discretionary power to control its docket, which extends to the issuance of a stay. See e.g., Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). This power to stay is "incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes of action on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants." Id. In exercising its discretion, the court must consider factors such as "wise judicial administration, giving regard to conservation of judicial resources and comprehensive disposition of litigation." Colorado River Water Conserv. Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976). An overly lenient standard for granting a motion to stay would result in unnecessary delay in many cases. Moreover, a court should not grant a stay absent a showing of hardship if "there is even a fair possibility that the stay... will work damage to someone else." Dependable Highway Express, Inc. v. Navigators Insurance Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007). Therefore, a court must balance the competing interests affected by a stay such as the "hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward." Lockyer v. State of California, 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005).
The Court finds that Plaintiffs have made the strong showing necessary to support a stay of discovery that would promote efficiency and justice in this case. Defendants will not be prejudiced because they will have an opportunity to conduct discovery, if appropriate, after the stay.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion to stay discovery (doc. # 74) is granted. If necessary, the parties shall file a joint discovery plan within seven days of the issuance of an order resolving the pending motion for summary judgment (doc. # 70) and motion to dismiss (doc. # 46).
DATED: March 9, 2016
/s/ _________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge