Nevada Property One, LLC v. Kiwibank Limited ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 9 NEVADA PROPERTY 1, Case No.: 2:19-cv-01121-APG-NJK 10 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 11 v. (Docket No. 23) 12 KIWIBANK LIMITED, et al., 13 Defendant(s). 14 Pending before the Court is Defendant Kiwibank’s motion to stay discovery. Docket No. 15 23. The Court has considered Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff’s response, and Defendant’s reply. 16 Docket Nos. 23, 30, 32. The motion is properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. 17 For the reasons stated below, the motion is GRANTED. 18 Courts have broad discretion to control discovery. See, e.g., Little v. City of Seattle, 863 19 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic 20 or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” Tradebay, LLC 21 v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 600 (D. Nev. 2011). Rule 1’s objectives—to ensure a “just, speedy, 22 and inexpensive determination” of each case—guide the Court when considering whether to stay 23 discovery. 24 Motions to stay discovery pending resolution of a motion may be granted when: (1) the 25 pending motion is potentially dispositive; (2) the pending motion can be decided without more 26 discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the pending motion to 27 evaluate the likelihood of dismissal. See Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 28 1} (D. Nev. 2013). The moving party has the burden to show that discovery should be stayed. See Kabo Tools Co, v. Porauto Indus. Co,, 2013 WL 5947138, at *1 (D. Nev. Oct. 31, 2013). 3 Defendant moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.! Docket No. 4. Often, a 4| motion that challenges personal jurisdiction “strongly favors a stay, or at a minimum, limitations on discovery until the question of jurisdiction is resolved” because the motion presents a “critical 6] preliminary question.” Hologram USA, Inc. v. Pulse Evolution Corp., 2015 WL 1600768, at *1 7] (D. Nev. Apr. 8, 2015) (collecting cases). In determining whether a stay is appropriate, the Court 8] is mindful that how it sees “the jurisdictional picture may be very different from how the assigned district judge will see the jurisdictional picture.” Jd. at *2 (citation omitted). Still, a motion to 10} dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction does not mandate a stay of discovery, and the Court retains 11} discretion to require discovery to go forward. Kabo Tools, 2013 WL 5947138, at *2. 12 Applying these standards to Defendant’s personal-jurisdiction challenge, the Court finds 13] that sufficient cause exists to GRANT Defendant’s motion to stay discovery pending disposition 14] of its motion to dismiss. Docket No. 23.” In the event resolution of the motion to dismiss does not 15] result in the dismissal of this Defendant, the parties shall file a proposed joint discovery plan no 16] later than 14 days after entry of the order resolving the motion to dismiss. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: September 17, 2019 He 20 United StateeM akin rate Judge 21 22 23 24 ——______ ' Defendant supplemented its motion to dismiss to also argue defective service of process. Docket No. 22. Plaintiff moved to strike the supplement. Docket No. 29. The outcome of that 4 motion is still pending. > Because the Court finds a stay of discovery appropriate based on the personal jurisdiction challenge, the Court does not address the other grounds for dismissal raised by Defendant.