First American Property and Casualty Company v. Hernandez ( 2024 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 FIRST AMERICAN PROPERTY AND 6 CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No. 2:23-cv-01945-JAD-NJK 7 Plaintiff, Order 8 v. [Docket No. 23] 9 WALDO HERNANDEZ, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 12 The parties have filed a stipulation to stay discovery pending the outcome of Defendant 13 Susan Hoy’s motion to dismiss. Docket No. 23. 14 “The decision to stay discovery is entrusted to the ‘wide discretion’ of the district court.” 15 Flynn v. Nevada, 345 F.R.D. 338, 343 (D.Nev. Jan. 3, 2024) (citing Little v. City of Seattle¸ 863 16 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988)). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic 17 or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” Tradebay, LLC 18 v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D.Nev. 2011). Discovery should proceed absent a “strong 19 showing” to the contrary. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 20 556 (D.Nev. 1997). That discovery may involve some inconvenience and expense is insufficient 21 to justify a stay of discovery. Twin City Fire Insurance Co. v. Employers Ins. Of Wausau, 124 22 F.R.D. 652, 653 (D.Nev. 1989). Instead, a sufficient showing of good cause to stay all discovery 23 exists when: (1) the pending motion is potentially dispositive in scope and effect; (2) the potentially 24 dispositive motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a 25 “preliminary peek” at the merits of the potentially dispositive motion and is convinced that the 26 plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief. Flynn v. Nevada, 345 F.R.D. at 352; Kor Media 27 Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D.Nev. 2013). The Court is guided in its analysis by 28 1} the objectives in Rule 1 to secure a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of cases. Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 602. 3 Here, the parties have not demonstrated that a stay is appropriate. The request clearly fails 4! for Defendant Brochu, as she has answered the complaint and, therefore, has not filed a dispositive 5] motion. See Docket No. 13. Further, as to Defendant Hoy, the parties fail to address the relevant standards and, therefore, fail to convince the Court that Plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for 7| relief. 8 Accordingly, the parties’ stipulation to stay discovery is DENIED without prejudice as to 9] Defendant Hoy and DENIED as to all other defendants. Docket No. 23. The parties must file a 10} joint proposed discovery plan no later than April 5, 2024. 1] IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: April 4, 2024. A. NANCY J. KOPPE 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 □ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28