Solares v. Amazon.com Services LLC ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 JASMINE SOLARES, ESTEFANIA Case No. 2:24-cv-00881-EJY CORREA RESTREPO, and STEVEN 5 REID, ORDER 6 Plaintiffs, 7 v. 8 AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, 9 Defendant. 10 11 Pending before the Court is the Stipulated Scheduling Order in which the parties do not 12 actually stipulate to a schedule. ECF No. 35. Also pending before the Court are two motions: (1) 13 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 15); and (2) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Circulation of Notice 14 of the Pendency of this Action. ECF No. 17. These motions are fully briefed and waiting for 15 decisions by the Court. The Court reviewed the Motion to Dismiss, but has made no decision 16 regarding the outcome. Nonetheless, if granted, the Motion would resolve the case on a 17 collective/class basis in its entirety. The Court weighs this factor against the time and expense of 18 discovery before conditional certification on a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action noting, 19 further, that no conditional certification process applies to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class claims. 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. A stay of discovery 27 may be granted when: (1) a pending motion is potentially dispositive of the case; (2) the potentially 1 “preliminary peek” at the merits of the potentially dispositive motion to evaluate the likelihood of 2 dismissal. Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013). The party seeking 3 a stay of discovery bears the burden of establishing the stay is warranted. Kabo Tools Co. v. Porauto 4 Indus. Co., Ltd., Case No. 2:12-cv-01859, 2013 WL 5947138, *1 (D. Nev. Oct. 31, 2013), citing 5 Holiday Sys., Int’l of Nev. v. Vivarelli, Scharwz, and Assocs., 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 125542, *5 (D. 6 Nev. Sept. 5, 2012). 7 Here, the Court agrees that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is potentially dispositive and can 8 be decided without discovery. The Court is less certain that the merits will lead to dismissal of all 9 class/collective claims. This is not a prequel to the Court’s decision. It is merely recognition of the 10 complicated nature of the arguments that have not yet been fully reviewed and vetted. Thus, the 11 Court finds the parties may conduct limited discovery pending the outcome of the Motion to Dismiss 12 as follows: 13 1. Discovery is open for a period of ninety (90) days measured from the date of this 14 Order; 15 2. The scope of discovery is limited to the named Plaintiffs (this does not include opt 16 ins, if any); 17 3. Defendant is to produce the named Plaintiffs’ personnel and time card records for the 18 claims period; 19 4. Defendant is to produce time and attendance policies, if any, applicable to Plaintiffs’ 20 claims; 21 5. Plaintiffs are to produce any documents in their possession, custody or control 22 relevant to their individual claims; 23 6. Plaintiffs are collectively entitled to propound 10 interrogatories and 10 document 24 requests on Defendant related to their claims; 25 7. No class data is to be requested and none is required to be produced during this 90 26 day discovery period; 27 8. Defendant is entitled to propound 10 interrogatories and 10 document requests on 1 9. Defendant may, at its choosing, take the deposition of the named Plaintiffs. 2 10. Plaintiffs may, at their choosing, take the deposition of their respective supervisors 3 or managers in their individual capacities; 4 11. The decision not to conduct discovery will not function as a waiver of any discovery 5 rights; and, 6 12. The interrogatories and depositions will not count against the total number permitted 7 under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Stipulated Scheduling Order (ECF No. 35) is DENIED 9 without prejudice. 10 Dated this 26th day of September, 2024. 11 12 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27