Opinion
Case No. 2:17-cv-03023-MMD-NJK
03-16-2018
HIMONIC, LLC, Plaintiff(s), v. TING-PONG CHOW, Defendant(s).
ORDER (Docket No. 12)
Pending before the Court is the parties' stipulation to stay discovery pending resolution of Defendant's motion to dismiss. Docket No. 12; see also Docket No. 8 (motion to dismiss). For the reasons discussed below, the stipulation to stay discovery is hereby GRANTED. Docket No. 12.
The Court has broad discretionary power to control discovery. See, e.g., Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). "The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending." Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). The party seeking a stay carries the heavy burden of making a strong showing why discovery should be denied. See, e.g., Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997). The case law in this District makes clear that requests to stay all discovery may be granted when: (1) the pending motion is potentially dispositive; (2) the potentially dispositive motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a "preliminary peek" at the merits of the potentially dispositive motion and finds there is a sufficient likelihood that the motion will be granted. See Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013). Courts are more likely to stay discovery when the underlying motion raises critical preliminary issues, such as jurisdiction. See Kabo Tools Co. v. Porauto Industries Co., 2013 WL 5947138, *1-2 (D. Nev. Oct. 31, 2013); see also Kidneigh v. Tournament One Corp., 2013 WL 1855764, at *2 (D. Nev. May 1, 2013) (finding that motion to dismiss raises issues of jurisdiction and venue that should be resolved at "the earliest possible stage in litigation").
Having reviewed these standards, the Court finds that a stay of discovery is appropriate. Accordingly, the stipulation to stay discovery is GRANTED. Docket No. 12. In the event resolution of the motion to dismiss does not result in termination of this case, the parties shall file a joint proposed discovery plan no later than 14 days after the entry of the order on the motion to dismiss.
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 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. --------
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 16, 2018
/s/_________
Nancy J. Koppe
United States Magistrate Judge