Wagers v. Robinson Nevada Mining Company

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 BRETT ROBERT WAGERS, Case No. 3:25-CV-00055-MMD-CLB 5 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY 6 v. [ECF No. 37] 7 ROBINSON NEVADA MINING COMPANY, et al., 8 Defendant. 9 Currently pending before the Court is Defendants’ Robinson Nevada Mining 10 Company (“Robinson Mining”), Mark Beres II, and John Haynes (collectively, 11 “Defendants”) motion to stay discovery, (ECF No. 37), pending the District Court’s 12 determination of pending motion to dismiss at ECF No. 31. Plaintiff Brett Robert Wagers 13 (“Wagers”) responded, (ECF No. 43), and Defendants replied, (ECF No. 45). The Court 14 has reviewed the relevant pleadings and papers, and, for the reasons set for below, grants 15 Defendants’ motion to stay discovery. 16 To determine if a stay is appropriate pending the ruling on a motion to dismiss, the 17 court must consider the following factors: (1) whether the pending motion is potentially 18 dispositive of the case; (2) whether the motion can be decided without additional 19 discovery; and (3) whether the court is convinced that the plaintiff cannot state a claim for 20 relief. Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013).1 The Court 21 must take a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the underlying dispositive motion in order 22 to find whether the plaintiff can state a claim. Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 23 597, 603 (D. Nev. 2011). The “preliminary peek” does not prejudge the outcome of the 24 motion; it merely evaluates whether an order staying discovery is warranted. See id. 25 In conducting its review, the Court also considers the goal of Federal Rule of Civil [26] 1 The undersigned follows the majority approach within the District of Nevada when [27] adjudicating motions to stay discovery—i.e., the preliminary peek framework outlined in Kor Media—and expressly adopts the analysis from Flynn v. Nevada, 345 F.R.D. 338 (D. 1 Procedure 1, which provides that the Rules should “be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive 3 | determination of every action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. With Rule 1 as its prime directive, the 4} court must decide whether it is more just to speed the parties along in discovery while a 5 | dispositive motion is pending or to delay discovery to accomplish the inexpensive 6 | determination of the case. See Big City Dynasty v. FP Holdings, L.P., 336 F.R.D. 507 , 7} 512 (D. Nev. 2020). 8 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 10 | claims. (See ECF No. 36.) Considering that the motion to dismiss is now fully briefed, (see ECF No. 44), no further discovery is needed to decide the motion. Having reviewed and conducted a “preliminary peek” of the underlying motion to dismiss, the Court finds that a motion to stay discovery is warranted. 14 Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to stay discovery, (ECF No. 37), is 15 | 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 17 | resolution of the motion. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 49 DATED: July 10, 2025 . [20] 21 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE