Clark v. Doma Title Insurance Inc

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 DAVID B. CLARK, individually and as Case No. 3:24-CV-00437-MMD-CLB trustee for The Clark Trust, 5 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S Plaintiff, MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY 6 AND STIPULATION TO EXTEND v. DISCOVERY [7] DOMA TITLE INSURANCE, INC.; DOES I [ECF Nos. 38, 50] 8 through X; ROE CORPORATIONS I through X, inclusive, [9] Defendants. [11] 12 Before the Court is Plaintiff David B. Clark’s motion to stay discovery pending 13 resolution of his motion for partial summary judgment, (ECF No. 38), and the parties’ 14 stipulation to extend the discovery deadlines, (ECF No. 50).1 The Court has reviewed 15 the relevant filings and, for the reasons set forth below, Clark’s motion to stay discovery 16 and the stipulation to extend the discovery deadlines are both denied. The parties are 17 directed to submit an updated discovery plan within 14 days of this order. 18 I. Clark’s Motion to Stay Discovery 19 Courts have broad discretionary power to control discovery, including the decision 20 to allow or deny discovery. See, e.g., Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 21 1988). Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may stay or limit the scope of 22 discovery upon a showing of good cause by the moving party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). 23 Meeting the “good cause” requirement is no easy task. The party seeking the stay must 24 make a “strong showing” as to why discovery should be stayed; broad statements about 25 inconvenience, cost, or a need for protection are insufficient. Blankenship v. Hearst 26 Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975); Ministerio Roca Solida v. U.S. Dep’t of Fish & [27] 1 Defendant Doma Title Insurance (“Doma”) filed an opposition to Clark’s motion to 1 Wildlife, 288 F.R.D. 500, 503 (D. Nev. 2013). 2 To determine if a stay of discovery is appropriate pending the ruling on a motion 3 for summary judgment, courts in this district consider the following factors: (1) whether 4 the pending motion is potentially dispositive of the case; (2) whether the motion can be 5 decided without additional discovery; and (3) whether, after a “preliminary peek” at the 6 merits of the underlying motion, the court is “convinced” that the potentially dispositive 7 motion will be granted. Flynn v. Nevada, 345 F.R.D 338, 345 (D. Nev. 2024); Kor Media 8 Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013). The “preliminary peek” does 9 not prejudge the outcome of the underlying motion; it merely evaluates whether an order 10 staying discovery is warranted. Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 603 (D. 11 Nev. 2011 ). Moreover, when applying these factors, courts must keep in mind the goal 12 of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 — that the Rules should “be construed, 13 administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and 14 inexpensive determination of every action.” 15 Here, the “potentially dispositive motion” at issue is Clark’s motion for partial 16 summary judgment. (ECF No. 42.) Clark argues that he has satisfied the three 17 aforementioned factors, (ECF No. 38 at 4-7), while Doma argues Clark has not made 18 the requisite showing on any of the three factors, (ECF No. 41 at 9-14). Accordingly, the 19 Court will address all three factors. 20 First, Clark’s motion for partial summary judgment is not potentially dispositive of 21 the entire case because litigation on at least some of Clark’s claims will continue even if 22 Clark’s motion were granted. 23 Second, it is not clear to the Court that Clark’s motion can be decided without 24 additional discovery. Clark filed his motion to stay discovery more than a week before 25 filing his motion for partial summary judgment, thus making it impossible for Doma to 26 identify what additional discovery may be needed. (Compare ECF No. 38 (Clark’s motion 27 to stay discovery filed on 8/19/2025) with ECF No. 42 (Clark’s motion for partial summary 1 Doma’s deadline to respond to Clark’s motion for partial summary judgment. (ECF No. 2 50.)2 On the pleadings before it, the Court cannot say with any certainty one way or the 3 other whether additional discovery may be necessary for Clark’s motion to be decided. 4 Third, the Court has conducted a “preliminary peek” of Clark’s motion for partial 5 summary judgment and is not convinced that Clark’s motion will be granted. As a starting 6 point, the motion for partial summary judgment is not fully briefed and there is no way for 7 the Court to adequately analyze the issues presented in the motion to fully determine 8 whether the motion will likely be granted. Moreover, the Court is not persuaded by Clark’s 9 argument that his motion will prevail because it presents a legal question “closely 10 mirroring” the legal question presented in Doma’s motion to dismiss, which the District 11 Judge denied. (ECF No. 38 at 6.) As Doma points out, the standards governing motions 12 to dismiss and motions for summary judgment are very different. (ECF No. 41 at 10.) It 13 is conceivable that under the summary judgment standard Clark’s argument may fail, 14 which weighs in favor of not staying discovery. Flynn, 345 F.R.D. at 346 (quoting Kor 15 Media Grp., LLC, 294 F.R.D at 583) (explaining that “there must be no question in the 16 court’s mind that the dispositive motion will prevail”). 17 The Court therefore finds that Clark has not made the strong showing required to 18 warrant staying discovery.3 19 II. Stipulation to Extend Discovery Deadlines 20 The Court now turns to the parties’ stipulation to extend the discovery deadlines. 21 The parties’ stipulation to extend the discovery deadlines does not actually provide 22 updated deadlines. Rather, it notes that an updated plan will be provided by October 20, [23] 2 Judge Du granted the stipulation to stay the deadline to respond to Clark’s motion [24] for partial summary judgment, extending the deadline until October 20, 2025. (ECF No. 25 51.) 26 3 Clark asks in the alternative that the Court order sequenced discovery and prioritize discovery on issues other than liability. (ECF No. 38 at 8-9.) The Court denies 27 this request because Clark’s case is not similarly situated to those cases in which such a request has been granted, and because discovery in this case has been (or should have 1| 2025, once Clark responds to Doma’s requests for admission and the Court rules on the motion to stay discovery. (ECF No. 50 at 3-4.) Without knowing what the updated discovery deadlines are, the Court will not grant an extension. Accordingly, the stipulation is denied, and the parties are directed to file an updated discovery plan and scheduling 5 | order within 14 days of this order. Ill. Conclusion 7 For the reasons discussed, Clark’s motion to stay discovery, (ECF No. 38), and 8 | the parties’ stipulation to extend the discovery deadlines, (ECF No. 50), are DENIED. 9 The parties shall file an updated discovery plan and scheduling order by October 10, 2025. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 DATED: September 24, 2025 . . [13] 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE