Christine Greve v. Public Utilities Commission of Nevada, et al

[1] 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA [4] Christine Greve, 5 Case No. 2:25-cv-01103-APG-NJK Plaintiff, 6 Order v. 7 [Docket No. 26] Public Utilities Commission of Nevada, et al, [8] Defendants. [10] 11 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulation to stay discovery. Docket No. 26. 12 “The decision to stay discovery is entrusted to the ‘wide discretion’ of the district court.” 13 Flynn v. Nevada, 345 F.R.D. 338 , 343 (D.Nev. Jan. 3, 2024) (citing Little v. City of Seattle¸ 863 14 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988)). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic 15 or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” Tradebay, LLC 16 v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D.Nev. 2011). Discovery should proceed absent a “strong 17 showing” to the contrary. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554 , 18 556 (D.Nev. 1997). That discovery may involve some inconvenience and expense is insufficient 19 to justify a stay of discovery. Twin City Fire Insurance Co. v. Employers Ins. Of Wausau, 124 20 F.R.D. 652 , 653 (D.Nev. 1989). Instead, a sufficient showing of good cause to stay all discovery 21 exists when: (1) the pending motion is potentially dispositive in scope and effect; (2) the potentially 22 dispositive motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a 23 “preliminary peek” at the merits of the potentially dispositive motion and is convinced that the 24 plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief. Flynn, 345 F.R.D. at 352; Kor Media Group, 25 LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D.Nev. 2013). The Court is guided in its analysis by the 26 objectives in Rule 1 to secure a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of cases. Tradebay, [27] 278 F.R.D. at 602 . [28] ] The parties fail to address the relevant standards for staying discovery pending the 2| resolution of a dispositive motion. See Docket No. 26. Specifically, the parties fail to even mention, much less provide an analysis, regarding the required preliminary peek. 4 Accordingly, the parties’ stipulation to stay discovery is DENIED. Docket No. 26. As the 5] Court previously ordered, the parties’ joint discovery plan is due no later than October 30, 2025. See Docket No. 25. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: October 29, 2025. UNITED STA ES MAGISTRATE JUDGE