Coyote Springs Investment, LLC v. State of Nevada, on relation to its Division of Water Resources, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources ( 2020 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 COYOTE SPRINGS INVESTMENT, Case No. 2:20-cv-01842-KJD-DJA LLC, ET AL, 7 Plaintiffs, 8 ORDER v. 9 STATE OF NEVADA, ET AL, 10 Defendants. 11 12 Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 17), filed 13 on November 17, 2020. The Court also considered Plaintiff’s Response (ECF No. 28), filed on 14 December 1, 2020 and Defendants’ Reply (ECF No. 31), filed on December 8, 2020. This matter 15 is also before the Court on Plaintiff’s Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 16 23), filed on November 19, 2020. The Court finds these matters properly resolved without a 17 hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. 18 Courts have broad discretionary power to control discovery. See, e.g., Little v. City of 19 Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir.1988). In deciding whether to grant a stay of discovery, the 20 Court is guided by the objectives of Rule 1 to ensure a just, speedy, and inexpensive 21 determination of every action. See Kidneigh v. Tournament One Corp., 2013 WL 1855764, at *2 22 (D. Nev. May 1, 2013). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or 23 blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” Tradebay, LLC v. 24 eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 600 (D. Nev. 2011). However, preliminary issues such as 25 jurisdiction, venue, or immunity are common situations that may justify a stay. See Twin City 26 Fire Ins. v. Employers of Wausau, 124 F.R.D. 653 (D. Nev. 1989); see also Kabo Tools Co. v. 27 Porauto Indus. Co., 2013 WL 5947138, at *1 (D. Nev. Oct. 31, 2013) (granting stay based on 1 288 F.R.D. 500, 506 (D. Nev. 2013) (granting stay based in part on alleged lack of subject matter 2 jurisdiction). Further, motions to stay discovery pending resolution of a dispositive motion may 3 be granted when: (1) the pending motion is potentially dispositive; (2) the potentially dispositive 4 motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a “preliminary 5 peek” at the merits of the potentially dispositive motion to evaluate the likelihood of dismissal. 6 See Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013). 7 A party seeking to stay discovery pending resolution of a potentially dispositive motion 8 bears the heavy burden of establishing that discovery should be stayed. See, e.g., Turner 9 Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997) (noting that a 10 stay of discovery may be appropriate where the complaint was “utterly frivolous, or filed merely 11 for settlement value.”); Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975). When 12 deciding whether to issue a stay, a court must take a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the 13 dispositive motion pending in the case. Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 602-603. In doing so, a court 14 must consider whether the pending motion is potentially dispositive of the entire case, and 15 whether that motion can be decided without additional discovery. Id. This “preliminary peek” is 16 not intended to prejudge the outcome, but to evaluate the propriety of a stay of discovery “with 17 the goal of accomplishing the objectives of Rule 1.” Id. (citation omitted). That discovery may 18 involve inconvenience and expense is not sufficient, standing alone, to support a stay of 19 discovery. Turner Broadcasting, 175 F.R.D. at 556. An overly lenient standard for granting 20 requests to stay would result in unnecessary delay in many cases. 21 After taking a preliminary peek at the pending motions to dismiss, remand, and 22 consolidate (ECF Nos. 4, 12, 22) and associated briefing, the Court finds that Defendants have 23 carried their heavy burden of establishing that discovery should be stayed. The issues before the 24 Court in the pending motions do not require further discovery. Additionally, discovery is 25 expensive and resolving issues of jurisdiction at the earliest possible stage of litigation is 26 important. The Court is not convinced that Plaintiff will survive Defendants’ jurisdictional 27 challenge, but notes, of course, that its view “may be very different than how the assigned district 1 4846152, *4 (D. Nev. Oct. 10, 2012). As such, the Court finds this is a case where a temporary 2 stay of discovery will further the goal of judicial economy. The Court will deny Plaintiff’s 3 proposed discovery plan as it is now moot. 4 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 5 17) is granted. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling 7 Order (ECF No. 23) is denied as moot. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in the event that the motion to dismiss is not granted in 9 full and the case is not remanded, the parties shall file a stipulated proposed discovery plan and 10 scheduling order no later than 14 days after a decision on the pending motion to dismiss (ECF 11 No. 4) is issued by the court. 12 13 DATED: December 14, 2020 14 15 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27