McNamara v. GEICO Casualty Company ( 2023 )

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Stacey McNamara, Case No. 2:22-cv-01770-RFB-DJA 6 Plaintiff, Order 7 v. 8 GEICO Casualty Company, 9 Defendant. 10 11 Before the Court is a stipulation to stay discovery deadlines pending the outcome of 12 Defendant GEICO Casualty Company’s motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 11). The Court finds that a 13 stay of discovery is appropriate in this case under the two-step analysis in Scharder v. Wynn, No. 14 2:19-cv-02159-JCM-BNW, 2021 WL 4810324, at *4 (D. Nev. Oct. 14, 2021). That analysis 15 provides that a Court may grant motions to stay discovery when a dispositive motion is pending 16 if: (1) the dispositive motion can be decided without further discovery; and (2) good cause exists 17 to stay discovery. Id. Here, both prongs are met. First, the parties agree that discovery pending 18 the outcome of the motion to dismiss would be unnecessary. Second, the parties have 19 demonstrated good cause to stay discovery: because, if the Court grants the motion to dismiss, the 20 discovery would be moot. A stay would thus accomplish the objectives of Rule 1: a just, speedy, 21 and inexpensive determination of the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 22 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the stipulation to stay discovery (ECF No. 11) is 23 granted. 24 25 DATED: January 11, 2023 26 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 27 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE