Opinion
2:22-cv-01770-RFB-DJA
01-11-2023
Stacey McNamara, Plaintiff, v. GEICO Casualty Company, Defendant.
ORDER
DANIEL J. ALBREGTS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Before the Court is a stipulation to stay discovery deadlines pending the outcome of Defendant GEICO Casualty Company's motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 11). The Court finds that a stay of discovery is appropriate in this case under the two-step analysis in Scharder v. Wynn, No. 2:19-cv-02159-JCM-BNW, 2021 WL 4810324, at *4 (D. Nev. Oct. 14, 2021). That analysis provides that a Court may grant motions to stay discovery when a dispositive motion is pending if: (1) the dispositive motion can be decided without further discovery; and (2) good cause exists to stay discovery. Id. Here, both prongs are met. First, the parties agree that discovery pending the outcome of the motion to dismiss would be unnecessary. Second, the parties have demonstrated good cause to stay discovery: because, if the Court grants the motion to dismiss, the discovery would be moot. A stay would thus accomplish the objectives of Rule 1: a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of the action. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 1.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the stipulation to stay discovery (ECF No. 11) is granted.