Opinion
Case No. 2:16-cv-00218-APG-GWF
06-09-2016
PAUL LOPEZ, Plaintiff, v. CLARK COUNTY, ex rel. CLARK COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Clark County and Defendant Clark County Fire Department's Motion to Stay (ECF No. 27), filed April 14, 2016. The Court conducted a hearing in this matter on May 19, 2016.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his complaint against Defendants on February 4, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges nine (9) claims of relief against all Defendants. The complaint alleges claims of invasion of privacy, defamation and defamation per se, intentional infliction of emotional distress, FMLA interference, civil conspiracy, and declaratory judgment against Defendant Clark County and Defendant Clark County Fire Department. The complaint alleges claims of invasion of privacy, negligence and negligence per se, defamation and defamation per se, intentional interference with existing contractual relations, intentional misrepresentation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy against Defendant Susan Vincent, individually, and Defendant Dr. Susan Vincent, a limited liability company.
Defendants Clark County and Clark County Fire Department filed their Motion to Dismiss on March 21, 2016. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff filed his Response on May 2, 2016. (ECF No. 36.) Defendant Susan Vincent and Defendant Dr. Susan Vincent joined Defendants Clark County and Clark County Fire Department's Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Stay on May 3, 2016. (ECF No. 37.) Defendants Clark County and Clark County Fire Department filed their Reply on June 2, 2016. (ECF No. 42.) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is currently pending before the District Court.
Defendants Clark County and Clark County Fire Department's Motion to Dismiss seeks dismissal of Plaintiff's first, third, sixth, eighth, and ninth claims for relief with prejudice on the grounds that they fail to state a claim for relief under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6). Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is potentially dispositive of all, but one claim, Plaintiff's FMLA interference claim against Clark County and Clark County Fire Department. Defendants argue that discovery in this matter should be stayed pending the resolution of their Motion to Dismiss, thereby relieving Defendants of incurring unnecessary expenses of discovery if the motion is granted.
Defendants Susan Vincent and Dr. Susan Vincent filed their Motion to Dismiss on April 18, 2016. (ECF No. 30.) Defendants Susan Vincent and Dr. Susan Vincent's Motion to Dismiss seeks dismissal of Plaintiff's first, second, third, fourth, six, and eighth causes of action without prejudice. In their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants argue that the "gravamen" of Plaintiff's allegations are medical malpractice and because Plaintiff failed to support his complaint with an affidavit of a qualified expert per NRS § 41A.071, Plaintiff's complaint is void as a matter of law. Defendants Susan Vincent and Dr. Susan Vincent's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 30), page 6.
DISCUSSION
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending. See Skellerup Indus. Ltd. V. City of L.A., 163 F.R.D. 598, 600-1 (C.D. Cal. 1995). Ordinarily, a dispositive motion does not warrant a stay of discovery. See Twin City Fire Insurance v. Employers of Wausau, 124 F.R.D. 652, 653 (D. Nev. 1989). See also Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997). The moving party carries the heavy burden of making a strong showing of why discovery should be denied. Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F .R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013).
Courts have broad discretionary power to control discovery. See Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir.1988). When deciding whether to grant a stay of discovery, the Court is guided by the objectives of Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 1 that ensures a "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action." Kor Media Group, 294 F.R.D. at 581. It is well known that the purpose of Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6) is to enable defendants to challenge the legal sufficiency of a complaint without subjecting themselves to discovery. Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). To establish good cause for a stay, the moving party must show more than an apparently meritorious Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Turner Broadcasting System, 175 F.R.D. at 556.
The Court may grant a motion to stay discovery 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 the plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief." Kor Media Group, 294 F.R.D. at 581.
Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6) requires only that the Court determine whether the pleadings are sufficient to establish a claim, and does not require the Court to determine if the plaintiff could find evidence to support the pleadings. Tracy v. United States, 243 F.R.D. 662, 664 (D. Nev. 2007). Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6) requires a plaintiff "to provide grounds of his entitlement for relief" which "requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of the cause of action will not do." Bell Atlantic Corp. V. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
With the above standards in mind, the Court turns to its "preliminary peek" of Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. Defendants Clark County and Clark County Fire Department argue that Plaintiff's factual allegations are "threadbare" and that many of Plaintiff's allegations contain bare legal conclusions. Defendants Clark County and Clark County Fire Department's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 16), page 8. Despite its argument that the factual allegations are threadbare, Defendants introduce new information, such as an HIPAA authorization form. Id. at page 9; Exhibit A. However, under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6), if the district court considers "matters outside the pleading..., the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of" as provided in Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 56. Oseguera v. Winters, 21 F. App'x 636, 637 (9th Cir. 2001). Defendants do not primarily attack the sufficiency of Plaintiff's factual allegations, but introduce new information.
Defendants Susan Vincent and Dr. Susan Vincent's argument that Plaintiff's complaint is void as a matter of law because the "gravamen" of Plaintiff's complaint is medical malpractice is not convincing. Defendants Susan Vincent and Dr. Susan Vincent's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 30), page 6. The Court finds that there is not a strong likelihood that Defendant Susan Vincent and Dr. Susan Vincent's Motion to Dismiss will be granted.
Based upon its preliminary review, the Court is not convinced that a stay of discovery is warranted such that discovery would be a waste of effort. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Clark County and Clark County Fire Department's Motion to Stay (ECF No. 27) is denied.
DATED this 9th day of June, 2016.
/s/_________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge