Automated Summary
Key Facts
This order grants Defendants' motion to stay discovery pending resolution of a motion to dismiss. The Court determined the motion is potentially dispositive of all claims and no further discovery is needed. If the motion to dismiss doesn't result in complete dismissal, parties must submit a joint proposed discovery plan within 14 days of resolution.
Issues
The Court granted Defendants' motion to stay discovery pending the District Court's determination of a pending motion to dismiss. Using the 'preliminary peek' framework from Kor Media Group v. Green and Flynn v. Nevada, the Court found that the motion is potentially dispositive of all claims, no further discovery is needed as the motion is fully briefed, and the stay serves the goal of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 by securing the inexpensive determination of the case.
Holdings
The court granted Defendants' Robinson Nevada Mining Company, Mark Beres II, and John Haynes motion to stay discovery (ECF No. 37) pending the District Court's determination of the pending motion to dismiss (ECF No. 31). The court found the motion to dismiss is potentially dispositive of all Plaintiff Wagers's claims and that no further discovery is needed to decide the motion. If resolution of the motion to dismiss does not result in complete dismissal, the parties shall submit a joint proposed discovery plan within 14 days of resolution.
Remedies
The court granted the defendants' motion to stay discovery pending resolution of the motion to dismiss, and ordered parties to submit a joint proposed discovery plan within 14 days if the motion does not result in complete dismissal.
Legal Principles
The court applied the preliminary peek framework from Kor Media Group v. Green and Flynn v. Nevada to grant a stay of discovery pending resolution of a motion to dismiss, considering Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1's goal of just, speedy, and inexpensive determination.
Precedent Name
- Big City Dynasty v. FP Holdings, L.P.
- Flynn v. Nevada
- Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc.
- Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green
Cited Statute
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1
Passage Text
- To determine if a stay is appropriate pending the ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court must consider: (1) whether the pending motion is potentially dispositive of the case; (2) whether the motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) whether the court is convinced that the plaintiff cannot state a claim for relief.
- The Court finds a stay of discovery pending resolution of the motion to dismiss is appropriate in this case. Defendants' motion is potentially dispositive of all Wagers's claims. Considering that the motion to dismiss is now fully briefed, no further discovery is needed to decide the motion.
- Accordingly, Defendants' motion to stay discovery, (ECF No. 37), is GRANTED. In the event resolution of the motion to dismiss does not result in complete dismissal, the parties shall submit a joint proposed discovery plan within 14 days of resolution of the motion.