Ochoa v. United States of America ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 RAMON GUILLEN OCHOA, Case No. 2:21-cv-00222-RFB-NJK 8 Plaintiff, Order 9 v. [Docket No. 10] 10 UNITED STATS OF AMERICA, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to stay discovery pending resolution of its 13 motion to dismiss. Docket No. 10; see also Docket No. 8 (motion to dismiss). Plaintiff failed to 14 respond in opposition. The motion to stay discovery is properly resolved without a hearing. See 15 Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons discussed below, the motion to stay discovery is GRANTED. 16 The Court has broad discretionary power to control discovery. See, e.g., Little v. City of 17 Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide 18 for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” 19 Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). Discovery should proceed 20 absent a “strong showing” to the contrary. Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 21 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997). The case law in this District makes clear that requests to stay 22 discovery may be granted when: (1) the underlying motion is potentially dispositive in scope and 23 effect; (2) the underlying motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court 24 has taken a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the underlying motion and is convinced that the 25 plaintiff will be unable to prevail.1 Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. 26 1 Conducting the “preliminary peek” puts the undersigned in an awkward position because 27 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 28 that motion is not intended to prejudice its outcome. See id. As a result, the undersigned will not provide a lengthy description of the merits of the pending motion to dismiss in this instance. 1} Nev. 2013). The Court is guided in its analysis by the objectives in Rule 1 to secure a just, speedy, 2|| and inexpensive determination of cases. Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 602. 3 The Court is satisfied that a stay of discovery is appropriate in this case. As to the first two requirements, the motion to dismiss is potentially dispositive of this case and it can be decided without discovery. As to the third requirement, the undersigned’s evaluation of the motion to 6| dismiss reveals that it is sufficiently meritorious to justify a stay of discovery. 7 Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to stay discovery (Docket No. 10) is GRANTED. In 8|| the event resolution of Defendant’s motion to dismiss does not result in the termination of this 9] case, the parties must file a joint proposed discovery plan no later than seven days after the entry 10] of the order resolving the motion to dismiss. 1] IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: August 20, 2021 13 LRN ney Nancy J. Koppe, * 14 United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27), ——__________ Nonetheless, the undersigned has carefully reviewed the arguments presented in the motion to 28] dismiss and subsequent briefing.