Opinion
2:22-cv-01664-RFB-EJY
10-24-2022
BAYLEY RENOVICH, Plaintiff, v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC; AMAZON.COM, INC.; DOES I-X; and ROE CORPORATIONS, LLCs, COMPANIES, AND/OR PARTNERSHIPS XI-XX, inclusive, Defendant.
WENDY M. KRINCEK Nevada Bar # 6147 EMIL S. KIM Nevada Bar # 14894 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Attorney for Defendants AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC; AMAZON.COM, INC. CHRISTIAN GABROY, ESQ. KAINE MESSER, ESQ. GABROY MESSER Attorneys for Plaintiff
WENDY M. KRINCEK
Nevada Bar # 6147
EMIL S. KIM
Nevada Bar # 14894
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Attorney for Defendants
AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC;
AMAZON.COM, INC.
CHRISTIAN GABROY, ESQ.
KAINE MESSER, ESQ.
GABROY MESSER Attorneys for Plaintiff
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY PENDING THE COURT'S RULING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
Plaintiff Bayley Renovich (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Amazon.com Services LLC (“Amazon”) and Amazon.com, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”), by and through their counsel of record, stipulate to stay discovery pending the Court's ruling on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”), [ECF No. 7], which seeks dismissal of all claims in Plaintiff's Complaint.
Plaintiff filed her Complaint in Nevada state court on August 12, 2022 alleging five separate causes of action and Defendants removed it to federal court on October 3, 2022. [ECF No. 1]. Defendants moved to dismiss all five Counts in the Complaint on October 6, 2022. [ECF No. 7]. Plaintiff has already served 32 requests for production upon each Defendant. Because Plaintiff's discovery requests are, and any future requests would be, necessarily related to claims which are subject to dismissal, the parties request the Court issue an order staying discovery until resolution of the Motion.
A district court has broad powers of case management, including the power to limit discovery to relevant subject matters and to adjust discovery as appropriate to each phase of litigation. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b), (c); 26(b). When a particular issue may be dispositive, the court may stay discovery concerning other issues until the critical issue is resolved. See Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th Cir. 1987); Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988); Ministerio Roca Solida v. U.S. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, 288 F.R.D. 500, 503 (D. Nev. 2013); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(1) (court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including forbidding disclosure or discovery).
When deciding whether to stay discovery while a dispositive motion is pending, courts consider: (1) whether the motion is “potentially dispositive of the entire case or at least dispositive of the issue on which discovery is sought,” and (2) “whether the pending potentially dispositive motion can be decided without additional discovery.” Ministerio Roca Solida v. U.S. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, 288 F.R.D. 500, 506 (D. Nev. 2013); see also, e.g., Klaizner, v. Ditech Financial LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-00414-GMN-CWH, 2016 WL 3176579 (D. Nev. June 2, 2016). In applying this two-pronged test, courts take a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the pending dispositive motion to assess whether a stay is warranted. Tradebay, LLC, v. Ebay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 603 (D. Nev. 2011).
The pending Motion seeks dismissal of all five Counts of the Complaint. Without a stay, the parties will be required to perform and be subject to discovery on claims that may not survive dismissal and may not survive an attempt at amendment. Discovery should also be stayed because the Motion can be decided without additional discovery. Ministerio Roca Solida v. U.S. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, 288 F.R.D. 500, 506 (D. Nev. 2013). The Complaint does not raise factual issues that require discovery for their resolution. Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th Cir.1987).
Additionally, because Defendants have moved to fully dismiss the case, Plaintiff has not been apprised of which factual allegations Defendants intend to admit, and which they intend to deny. Nor has Plaintiff been apprised of the defenses Defendants intend to assert. Accordingly, Plaintiff is unable to hone her discovery, likely leading to the parties' waste of resources.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiff and Defendants as follows:
1. Discovery in the instant action shall be stayed pending decision on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 7]; and
2. Should the Court's order resolving the Motion not result in full dismissal of all of Plaintiff's claims, then: (i) the stay of discovery shall be lifted; (ii) the parties shall conduct a Rule 26(f) conference within fourteen (14) days after lifting of the stay; and (iii) the parties shall file a proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order within twenty-one (21) calendar days after the lifting of the stay.
IT IS SO ORDERED.