- 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 *** 4 5 SHEIDA HUKMAN, 2:21-cv-01279-APG-VCF 6 Plaintiff, ORDER 7 vs. MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY [ECF NO. 26]; 8 TERRIBLE HERBST INC., MOTION TO COMPEL INTERROGATORIES [ECF NO. 27] 9 Defendant. 10 11 Defendant Terrible Herbst Inc filed a motion to stay discovery (ECF No. 26) and plaintiff filed a 12 motion to compel (ECF No. 27). I grant the defendant’s motion to stay. ECF No. 26. I deny the 13 plaintiff’s motion to compel without prejudice as moot. ECF No. 27. 14 I. Background 15 Pro se plaintiff Sheida Hukman brings claims against her former employer defendant Terrible 16 Herbst Inc for (1) national origin discrimination in violation of Title VII; (2) retaliation; (3) denied 17 hiring as supervisor in violation of Title VII; (4) denied hiring as store manager in violation of Title VII; 18 (5) harassed in violation of Title VII; (6) denied paying 401k benefits and Spanish premium pay; (7) 19 denied meal & rest periods; (8) constructive discharge; and (9) discrimination regarding unemployment 20 benefits claim. ECF No. 1-3. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 6. 21 Defendant argues in its motion to stay that its motion to dismiss is dispositive of most of 22 plaintiff’s claims and can be decided without discovery. ECF No. 26 at 3. Plaintiff argues that she will 23 be prejudiced by a stay because it may take many months for the Court to decide the motion to dismiss. 24 ECF No. 28 at 2. Defendant argues in its reply that plaintiff did not address its arguments that most of 25 1 1 her claims are legally insufficient and subject to dismissal. ECF No. 29 at 2. Defendant argues that 2 plaintiff will not be prejudiced by a temporary stay because she may seek discovery later regarding any 3 surviving claims. Id. at 3. The defendant argues that a temporary stay will serve judicial efficiency and 4 save resources. Id. 5 II. Analysis 6 When evaluating a motion to stay discovery while a dispositive motion is pending, the court 7 initially considers the goal of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1: the Rules “should be construed, 8 administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive 9 determination of every action[.]” The Rules do not provide for automatic or blanket stays of discovery 10 when a potentially dispositive motion is pending. Ministerio Roca Solida v. U.S. Dep't of Fish & 11 Wildlife, 288 F.R.D. 500, 502 (D. Nev. 2013). Whether to grant a stay is within the discretion of the 12 court. Munoz-Santana v. U.S. I.N.S., 742 F.2d 561, 562 (9th Cir. 1984). “[A] party seeking a stay of 13 discovery carries the heavy burden of making a strong showing why discovery should be denied.” 14 Ministerio Roca Solida, 288 F.R.D. at 503. 15 Courts in the District of Nevada apply a two-part test when evaluating whether a discovery stay 16 should be imposed. See TradeBay, LLC v. Ebay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 600 (D. Nev. 2011). First, the 17 pending motion must be potentially dispositive of the entire case or at least the issue on which discovery 18 is sought. Id. Second, the court must determine whether the pending motion to dismiss can be decided 19 without additional discovery. Id. When applying this test, the court must take a “preliminary peek” at the 20 merits of the pending dispositive motion to assess whether a stay is warranted. Id. 21 Without prejudging the outcome of the motion to dismiss, I find that there is a significant 22 likelihood that the claims against the defendant will be considerably limited in scope if the Court 23 dismisses the case for failure to state a claim or if the Court eliminates any of the plaintiff’s claims. For 24 example, defendant argues that her claim for discrimination during the unemployment proceedings is not 25 2 1 viable because absolute privilege applies to Terrible’s response to plaintiff’s claim for unemployment 2 benefits. ECF No. 6 at 10. Defendant also argues that she did not timely file a charge of discrimination 3 with the EEOC regarding her failure to promote claims. Id. These are legal questions that can be decided 4 without discovery. Whether plaintiff has alleged plausible claims at this stage is a matter of law will 5 affect whether the plaintiff can proceed with any of her claims. After a “preliminary peek" and 6 considering the goals of Rule 1 to “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination” of all cases, I 7 find that many of the arguments advanced in the motion to dismiss may have merit. Discovery will be 8 stayed pending resolution of the defendant’s motion to dismiss. 9 Since I am staying discovery, I dismiss plaintiff’s motion to compel without prejudice as moot. 10 She may renew her motion, if appropriate, after the Court issues an order on the motion to dismiss. If her 11 claims survive, she must meet and confer with the defendants regarding any outstanding discovery 12 issues prior to renewing her motion to compel. 13 Accordingly, and for good cause shown, 14 I ORDER that the defendant’s motion to stay discovery (ECF No. 26), pending resolution of the 15 motion to dismiss, is GRANTED. 16 I FURTHER ORDER that plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 27) is DENIED WITHOUT 17 PREJUDICE. 18 NOTICE 19 Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and 20 recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk 21 of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal 22 may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified 23 time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file 24 objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues 25 3 1 || waives the right to appeal the District Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the 2 || District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. 3 || Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Pursuant to LR JA 3-1, the plaintiff must immediately file 4 || written notification with the court of any change of address. The notification must include proof of 5 || service upon each opposing party’s attorney, or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by 6 |} counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may result in dismissal of the action. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 DATED this 17th day of December 2021. 10 CAM FERENBACH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Document Info
Docket Number: 2:21-cv-01279
Filed Date: 12/17/2021
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 6/25/2024