Middle Child, LLC v. Middle Child Group, LLC ( 2024 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 6 MIDDLE CHILD, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00854-JCM-NJK 7 Plaintiff, Order 8 v. [Docket No. 18] 9 MIDDLE CHILD GROUP, LLC, 10 Defendant. 11 12 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to stay discovery pending resolution of its 13 motion to dismiss. Docket No. 18. Plaintiff filed an opposition. Docket No. 26.1 Defendant did 14 not file a reply. See Docket. The motion is properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 15 78-1. 16 The Court has broad discretionary power to control discovery. See, e.g., Little v. City of 17 Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide 18 for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” 19 Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). The party seeking a stay of 20 discovery bears the heavy burden of making a strong showing that discovery should be denied. 21 Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997). Discovery may 22 be stayed when: (1) there is a pending motion that is potentially dispositive in scope and effect; 23 (2) the potentially dispositive motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the 24 Court has taken a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the underlying motion and is convinced that 25 26 27 1 The opposition includes a request to incorporate by reference. See Docket No. 26 at 1 (referring to Docket No. 26). The Court reviewed the cited filing, but it will not allow 28 incorporation by reference moving forward. 1} Plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief. Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013). 3 Here, Plaintiff submits that it needs discovery to resolve the bad faith issue in the motion 4! to dismiss. Docket No. 26 at 3. Defendant failed to reply; therefore, it failed to oppose Plaintiff's 5] contention. Further, the Court is not convinced that Plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for 6] relief.” 7 Therefore, the Court DENIES the motion to stay discovery. Docket No. 18. The parties 8|| must file a joint proposed discovery plan no later than October 15, 2024. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. A. 10 Dated: October 8, 2024 A, < E— ~. SOA Nancy J. Koppe 12 United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ? Conducting the preliminary peek puts the undersigned in an awkward position because the assigned district judge who will decide the motion to dismiss may have a different view of its 26] merits. See Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 603. The undersigned's “preliminary peek” at the merits of that motion is not intended to prejudice its outcome. See id. Asa result, the undersigned will not 27|| provide a lengthy discussion of the merits of the pending motion to dismiss in this instance. Nonetheless, the undersigned has carefully reviewed the arguments presented in the motion to 28] dismiss and subsequent briefing.