Opinion
Case No. 2:16-cv-01236-JCM-NJK
07-27-2016
FREESTREAM AIRCRAFT (BERMUDA) LIMITED, et al., Plaintiff(s), v. AERO LAW GROUP, et al., Defendant(s).
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY (Docket No. 26)
Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to stay discovery. Docket No. 26. Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition and Defendants filed a reply. Docket Nos. 28, 29. The Court finds this motion properly decided without oral argument. See Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons discussed more fully below, the motion to stay is hereby GRANTED.
Courts have 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, 600 (D. Nev. 2011). In deciding whether to grant a stay of discovery, the Court is guided by the objectives of Rule 1 to ensure a "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action." Id. at 602-03. Courts in this District have formulated three requirements in determining whether to stay discovery pending resolution of a potentially dispositive motion. Motions to stay 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 to evaluate the likelihood of dismissal. See Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013). A party seeking to stay discovery pending resolution of a potentially dispositive motion bears the burden of establishing that discovery should be stayed. See Holiday Sys., Int'l of Nev. v. Vivarelli, Scharwz, and Assocs., 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 125542, *5 (D. Nev. Sept. 5, 2012).
Generally speaking, "a pending motion challenging [personal] jurisdiction strongly favors a stay, or at a minimum, limitations on discovery until the question of jurisdiction is resolved." AMC Fabrication, Inc. v. KRD Trucking West, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist Lexis 146270, *5-6 (D. Nev. Oct. 10, 2012); see also Kabo Tool Co. v. Porauto Indus. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 53570, *2 (D. Nev. Apr. 15, 2013) (noting more lenient standard for stay pending personal jurisdiction challenge since that is a "critical preliminary question"). In determining whether a stay is appropriate, the Court is mindful that "how the undersigned sees the jurisdictional picture may be very different from how the assigned district judge will see the jurisdictional picture." AMC Fabrication, 2012 U.S. Dist Lexis 146270 at *10. Nonetheless, the filing of a motion challenging personal jurisdiction does not mandate a stay of discovery and the Court retains discretion to require discovery to go forward. See id. at *5 (citing Holiday Systems, 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 125542).
Applying these standards, the Court finds that sufficient cause exists to GRANT the motion to stay. In the event that the pending motion to dismiss is not granted in full, the parties shall file a proposed discovery plan and scheduling order within seven days of the issuance of the order resolving the motion to dismiss.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 27, 2016
/s/_________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge