Opinion
Case No. 2:16-cv-01588-JAD-NJK
10-11-2016
GARY TOPOLEWSKI, et al., Plaintiff(s), v. PAUL BLYSCHAK, et al., Defendant(s).
ORDER (Docket No. 36)
Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to stay pending resolution of motions to dismiss. Docket No. 36, Docket No. 38 (joinder); see also Docket Nos. 11, 12 (motions to dismiss). Any response had to be filed by October 6, 2016, Docket No. 37, but none has been filed to date.
The Court has 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, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). The party seeking a stay carries the heavy burden of making a strong showing why discovery should be denied. See, e.g., Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997). The case law in this District makes clear that requests to stay all discovery may be granted generally 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. See Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013). In the specific context of a motion challenging personal jurisdiction, courts are more inclined to stay discovery and have found that such a motion favors a stay. See, e.g., Hologram USA, Inc. v. Pulse Evolution Corp., 2015 WL 1600768, *1 (D. Nev. Apr. 8, 2016).
Conducting this preliminary peek puts the undersigned in an awkward position because the assigned district judge who will decide the motion to dismiss may have a different view of its merits. See Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 603. The undersigned's "preliminary peek" at the merits of that motion is not intended to prejudice its outcome. See id. --------
Having reviewed the underlying motions to dismiss, the Court finds that these elements are met in this case and GRANTS the motion to stay discovery. If the motions to dismiss are not granted in full, the parties shall file a proposed discovery plan within seven days of the issuance of the order resolving the first motion to dismiss that is decided.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 11, 2016
/s/_________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge