Shahroki v. Harter ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 8 ALI SHAHROKI, Case No. 2:21-cv-01126-RFB-NJK 9 Plaintiff(s), Order 10 v. [Docket Nos. 84, 85, 91, 93, 94, 113] 11 MATHEW HARTER, et al., 12 Defendant(s). 13 Pending before the Court is a motion to stay discovery filed by Defendants Marzola & Ruiz 14 Law Group and Yvonne Ruiz. Docket No. 84; see also Docket No. 86 (supplement). Defendants 15 Standish, Spradling, Thielke, Standish Law Group, and Harter filed joinders to that motion. See 16 Docket No. 94, 113. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition, Docket No. 125; see also Docket 17 No. 128 (response to joinder), and Defendants Marzola & Ruiz Law Group and Ruiz filed a reply, 18 Docket No. 158. 19 Also pending before the Court is a motion to stay discovery filed by Defendants Burrow 20 and Pearson. Docket No. 85. Defendant Harter filed a joinder to that motion. Docket No. 93. 21 Also pending before the Court is a motion to open discovery filed by Plaintiff. Docket No. 22 91. Defendant Harter filed a response. Docket No. 132; see also Docket No. 134 (corrected 23 image). Defendants Burrow, Pearson, Standish, Spradling, Thielke, Standish Law Group, Marzola 24 & Ruiz Law Group, and Ruiz filed joinders to that response. Docket No. 138, 139, 141. 25 The Court does not require a hearing on these motions. See Local Rule 78-1. For the 26 reasons discussed more fully below, the motions to stay discovery and the joinders thereto (Docket 27 Nos. 84, 85, 93, 94, 113) are GRANTED and the motion to open discovery (Docket No. 91) is 28 DENIED. 1 I. STANDARDS 2 The Court has broad discretionary power to control discovery. See, e.g., Little v. City of 3 Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide 4 for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” 5 Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). Discovery should proceed 6 absent a “strong showing” to the contrary. Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 7 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997). The case law in this District makes clear that requests to stay 8 discovery may be granted when: (1) the underlying motion is potentially dispositive in scope and 9 effect; (2) the underlying motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court 10 has taken a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the underlying motion and is convinced that the 11 plaintiff will be unable to prevail. Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 12 2013). The Court is guided in its analysis by the objectives in Rule 1 to secure a just, speedy, and 13 inexpensive determination of cases. Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 602. 14 II. ANALYSIS 15 A stay of discovery is appropriate here. As to the first two requirements, the underlying 16 motions to dismiss are potentially dispositive of this case and can be decided without discovery. 17 As to the third requirement, the undersigned’s evaluation of the motions to dismiss reveal that they 18 are sufficiently meritorious to justify a stay of discovery.1 19 // 20 // 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 1 Conducting the preliminary peek puts the undersigned in an awkward position because 26 the assigned district judge who will decide the motions to dismiss may have a different view of their merits. See Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 603. This “preliminary peek” at the merits of those 27 motions is not intended to prejudice their outcome. See id. As a result, the undersigned will not provide a lengthy discussion of the merits of the underlying motions. Nonetheless, the undersigned 28 has carefully reviewed the arguments presented in the underlying motions and subsequent briefing. CONCLUSION 2 Accordingly, the motions to stay discovery and the joinders thereto (Docket Nos. 84, 85, 3] 93, 94, 113) are GRANTED and the motion to open discovery (Docket No. 91) is DENIED. In 4] the event resolution of Defendants’ motions to dismiss does not result in the termination of this 5] case, a discovery plan or joint status report must be filed within 14 days of the issuance of such 6] order(s). 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: October 26, 2021 Nancy J. Keppe 10 United States Magistrate Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28