Piccolotto v. One of a Kind Investment USA Holdings, LLC ( 2023 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 MICHEL PICCOLOTTO, an individual, Case No. 2:21-cv-01645-RFB-EJY 5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v. 7 ONE OF A KIND INVESTMENT USA HOLDINGS, LLC, a dissolved Florida 8 limited liability company; MATTHIEU V. LECUYER, an individual; DOES 1-10, 9 inclusive, 10 Defendants. 11 12 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 33), which the 13 Court has reviewed along with Plaintiff’s Opposition (ECF No. 36) and Defendants’ Reply (ECF 14 No. 38). Defendants argue a stay of discovery is proper because (1) the pending Motion to Dismiss 15 will likely be dispositive of all of Plaintiff’s claims, and (2) the stay will prevent the costs associated 16 with pursuing unnecessary discovery. Plaintiff argues the Motion to Dismiss (1) will not be 17 dispositive of the pending claims, and (2) the effectiveness of the release, which is at the center of 18 Defendants’ dismissal arguments, is fraudulent. Plaintiff claims he did not sign the release, which 19 was procured by fraud. 20 Courts have broad discretion to control discovery. Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 21 (9th Cir. 1988). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket stays 22 of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 23 F.R.D. 597, 600 (D. Nev. 2011). A pending dispositive motion “is not ordinarily a situation that in 24 and of itself would warrant a stay of discovery.” Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 25 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997) (quotation omitted). Nor does the fact that “discovery may involve 26 some inconvenience and expense” automatically lead to a stay of discovery. Id. 27 When deciding whether to grant a discovery stay, courts are often guided by Rule 1 of the 1 action. Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 602-03. Motions seeking to stay discovery pending the resolution 2 of a dispositive motion may be granted when: (1) the pending motion is potentially dispositive; (2) 3 the potentially dispositive motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court has 4 taken a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the potentially dispositive motion to evaluate the 5 likelihood of dismissal. Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013). The 6 party seeking a discovery stay bears the burden of establishing the stay is warranted. Kabo Tools 7 Co. v. Porauto Indus. Co., Ltd., 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 156928, *1 (D. Nev. Oct. 31, 2013) (citing 8 Holiday Sys., Int’l of Nev. v. Vivarelli, Scharwz, and Assocs., 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 125542, *5 (D. 9 Nev. Sept. 5, 2012)). 10 The Court took a preliminary peek at the Motion to Dismiss and Opposition thereto. While 11 certain claims may be decided without pursing any discovery, the issues raised with respect to the 12 release cannot be resolved based on the pleadings alone. Neither the content nor the law pertaining 13 to the contract or release will allow for a resolution of Plaintiff’s fraud claim without discovery. If 14 the release is effective, all of Plaintiff’s claims will likely fail. If the release is not effective, at least 15 some of Plaintiff’s claims are likely to proceed. 16 Under these circumstances, the Court finds a wholesale stay of discovery is not appropriate. 17 Discovery pertaining to and regarding the release, its procurement, the signature and, thus, its legal 18 effect, should proceed. 19 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF 20 No. 33) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that discovery pertaining to Plaintiff’s claim of fraud as it 22 pertains to the release, will proceed. Discovery regarding all other claims raised in Plaintiff’s 23 Complaint is stayed at this time. 24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall have 90 days to conduct and complete: 25 (1) written discovery such that all responses are due no later than June 12, 2023; and (2) deposition 26 discovery; provided, however, that each party may take no more than two depositions, and each 27 deposition may not exceed three hours. These depositions will not count toward the total number of 1 || deposition allowed under the Federal Rules. All depositions must be completed no later than Ju 2 || 12, 2023. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that at the conclusion of the limited discovery described abov 4 || the parties may seek leave of court to file motions for partial summary judgment. Leave must | 5 || sought from the District Judge who may, if leave is granted, set parameters for the limited moti 6 || practice described herein. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties may, if they so choose, submit an alternatr 8 || discovery plan and scheduling order to the Court that expands the scope of discovery permitted und 9 || this Order. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon resolution of the pending Motion to Dismiss tl 11 |} parties must, within 14 days of such resolution, file a discovery plan and scheduling order □□□□□□□□□ 12 |} all remaining discovery unless the Motion to Dismiss disposes of this case in its entirety. 13 Dated this 13th day of March, 2023. 14 15 FLAYNAY ake 6 UNITEDSTATES MAG TE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28