Diep v. Liberty Media Corporation ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 JACK DIEP, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-02124-GMN-NJK 8 Plaintiffs, Order 9 v. [Docket Nos. 48, 49] 10 LIBERTY MEDIA CORPORATION, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 Pending before the Court is Defendant Liberty Media Corporation’s motion to stay 13 discovery pending resolution of its motion to dismiss. Docket No. 48. Plaintiffs filed a response 14 in opposition. Docket No. 50. Defendant filed a reply. Docket No. 52. The motion is properly 15 resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 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 burden of making a strong showing that discovery should be denied. Turner 21 Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997). Discovery may be stayed 22 when: (1) there is a pending motion that is potentially dispositive; (2) the potentially dispositive 23 motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a “preliminary 24 peek” at the merits of the underlying motion and is convinced that Plaintiff will be unable to state 25 a claim for relief. Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013). 26 27 28 1 The Court agrees with Defendant that these elements are present here. The motion is 2|| potentially dispositive of the case and may be decided without discovery.! Moreover, the Court is convinced by the arguments presented in the motion to dismiss that Plaintiffs will be unable to state claim.” See, e.g., In re Pacquiao-Mayweather Boxing Match Pay-Per-View Litig., 942 F.3d 5} 1160 (9th Cir. 2019). 6 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to stay discovery pending resolution of 7| Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Docket No. 48. In the event the underlying motion to dismiss is 8|| not granted in full, a joint status report or joint discovery plan must be filed within 14 days of the 9} resolution of the motion to dismiss. Further, the Court DENIES as moot the pending proposed 10} discovery plan. Docket No. 49. oy ll IT IS SO ORDERED. LY A eget 12 Dated: October 8, 2024 LS 13 SN Nancy J.Koppe~ = & 14 United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ' Plaintiffs submit that discovery may be required to decide the pending motion to dismiss. Docket No. 50 at 5-6. In reply, however, Defendant submits that its motion to dismiss accepts 23} Plaintiffs’ allegations as true and thus does not require discovery. Docket No. 52 at 2. Further, Defendant submits, Plaintiffs did not seek discovery when responding to the motion to dismiss or 24! argue at the time that discovery was necessary. Jd. 25 ? Conducting the preliminary peek puts the undersigned in an awkward position because the assigned district judge will decide the motion to dismiss and 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 the motion to dismiss is not intended to prejudice its outcome. See id. Asa result, the undersigned will not 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 underlying 28] motion and subsequent briefing.