Jackson v. Nevada Department of Corrections ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Robert Jackson, Case No. 2:21-cv-01773-CDS-MDC 4 Plaintiff, 5 vs. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY (ECF NO. 37) 6 Nevada Department of Corrections, et al., 7 Defendants. 8 9 The Court has considered the defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 37)(“Motion”). 10 11 The Court GRANTS Motion. 12 The Court finds staying discovery is appropriate in this case. Federal courts have the “power to 13 stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the 14 causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. 15 N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). “The district court has wide discretion in controlling 16 discovery[.]” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011) (citing Little v. City of 17 Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988)). When considering a motion to stay discovery while a 18 dispositive motion is pending, “this court considers the goal of Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil 19 Procedure which directs that the Rules shall ‘be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, 20 and inexpensive determination of every action.’” Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 602 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 1). Thus, the Court may consider staying discovery pursuant to its inherent powers and discretion, 22 23 together with the goals pronounced by Rule 1. 24 The undersigned Magistrate Judge previously adopted the pragmatic approach when considering 25 motions to stay discovery because a dispositive motion is pending. Aristocrat Techs., Inc. v. Light & pragmatic approach considers only the following two elements: (1) if the dispositive motion can be 1 decided without further discovery; and (2) good cause exists to stay discovery. Id. Here, the 2 defendants have filed a motion to dismiss, in which they argue that qualified immunity protects them 3 4 from this lawsuit. ECF No. 37. The pro se plaintiff did not file a response to the Motion. Ordinarily, 5 pursuant to LR 7-2(d), the failure of an opposing party to file a response to a motion constitutes a 6 consent. However, given the plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court reviews the Motion on the merits, but 7 cautions the plaintiff that failure to file a response in the future may constitute automatic consent. 8 Reviewing the Motion in the light most favorably to the plaintiff given his pro se status, the 9 Court finds that the plaintiff will not be prejudiced by a short stay of discovery, as no discovery is 10 needed to determine the legal question of whether the defendants are immune from suit. The defendants, 11 on the other hand, would be prejudiced if discovery commenced now because it would effectively deny 12 them of their qualified immunity argument. The Court finds that the motion to dismiss can be decided 13 without further discovery. The Court also finds good cause to stay discovery until the Court resolves the 14 issues the defendants raise in the motion to dismiss. 15 IT IS ORDERED that: 16 17 1. Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 37) is GRANTED. Discovery in this 18 matter shall be stayed pending resolution of defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 36). 19 2. If the Court denies’ defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 36), within two weeks of the 20 entry of the Court’s order, the parties shall meet and confer and file either (1) a stipulation to 21 enter a scheduling order for inmates in compliance with Local Rule 16-1(b) or (2) a joint 22 motion to enter a scheduling order that details the parties’ disagreements. 23 Dated: September 16, 2024 24 _________________________ Hon. Maximiliano D. Couvillier III 25 United States Magistrate Judge