Fox v. Kovacs ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 MARCELLA FOX, Case No. 2:24-cv-00047-CDS-NJK 8 Plaintiff(s), Order 9 v. [Docket No. 27] 10 RYAN KOVACS, et al., 11 Defendant(s). 12 Pending before the Court is Defendants Ryan Kovacs, Le Croque Mitaine LLC, and Orange 13 Realty Group LLC’s motion to stay discovery pending resolution of their motion to dismiss. 14 Docket No. 27.1 No response has been filed to the motion to stay discovery and the deadline for 15 doing so has passed. See Local Rule 7-2(b); see also Local Rule 7-2(d) (explaining that the failure 16 to oppose a motion is generally deemed consent to its granting). Moreover, it appears that the 17 governing standards have been satisfied to stay discovery involving Defendants Ryan Kovacs, Le 18 Croque Mitaine LLC, and Orange Realty Group LLC. See, e.g., Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 19 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013). Accordingly, the motion to stay discovery is GRANTED. 20 Discovery involving Defendants Ryan Kovacs, Le Croque Mitaine LLC, and Orange Realty Group 21 LLC is stayed pending resolution of their motion to dismiss. In the event resolution of that motion 22 to dismiss does not result in termination of the case against Defendants Ryan Kovacs, Le Croque 23 Mitaine LLC, and Orange Realty Group LLC, then a proposed discovery plan must be filed within 24 14 days of the issuance of the order resolving that motion to dismiss. 25 While a stay of discovery is being entered with respect to Defendants Ryan Kovacs, Le 26 Croque Mitaine LLC, and Orange Realty Group LLC, the Court has been provided no reason why 27 28 1 The motion to dismiss has been fully briefed. See Docket Nos. 12, 23, 30. 1} discovery should be stayed with respect to Defendant Hopelink of Southern Nevada, which filed 2|| an answer to the complaint and did not join in the pending motion to dismiss. Cf White v. Am. Tobacco Co., 125 F.R.D. 508, 510 (D. Nev. 1989) (explaining that discovery should not be stayed 4! with respect to a defendant who did not move to dismiss or join in another defendant’s motion to 5] dismiss). As such, discovery has not been stayed herein with respect to Defendant Hopelink of 6] Southern Nevada. Plaintiff and Defendant Hopelink of Southern Nevada must engage in a Rule 7|| 26(f) conference and file a joint proposed discovery plan by June 3, 2024.7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: May 13, 2024 10 LY z — _ Nancy J. Koppe 11 United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ? Nothing herein prevents Plaintiff and/or Defendant Hopelink of Southern Nevada from seeking to expand the scope of the stay of discovery, if appropriate factual and legal grounds for 28]| that request exist.