Hayden Sr v. Commercial Litigation Docket

[3] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [4] DISTRICT OF NEVADA [5] * * * [6] STEVEN MARK HAYDEN, SR., Case No. 2:18-cv-02403-RFB-CWH [7] Plaintiff, 8 ORDER v. [9] COMMERCIAL LITIGATION DOCKET, et 10 al., 11 Defendants. [12] 13 Presently before the court is defendant Gerald D. Colvin’s motion to stay discovery and 14 for a protective order (ECF Nos. 91, 92), filed on May 7, 2019. The motion is unopposed. 15 I. BACKGROUND 16 The parties are familiar with the facts of this case and the court will not repeat them here 17 except as necessary. Colvin moves to stay discovery pending the court’s decision on his motion 18 to dismiss for insufficient service of process under Rule 12(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil 19 Procedure (ECF No. 79).1 The motion also requests dismissal on other grounds, including lack of 20 personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Colvin argues that the motion to dismiss is 21 dispositive regarding his participation in the case and presents key issues of the court’s 22 jurisdiction. Colvin also notes that Hayden has commenced serving written requests for 23 admissions although the parties have not had a Rule 26(f) conference. Colvin met and conferred 24 with Hayden regarding the procedural defects related to the premature requests for admissions, 25 scheduling of a Rule 26(f) conference, and potentially staying discovery, but the parties were [27] 1 The motion to dismiss (ECF No. 79) is pending before the United States district judge 1 unable to reach an agreement on these issues. Finally, Colvin requests that the court exercise its 2 inherent authority to impose monetary sanctions against Hayden for what Colvin argues is bad 3 faith litigation conduct. Hayden did not oppose the motion, which constitutes a consent to the 4 granting of the motion under Local Rule 7-2(d). 5 II. DISCUSSION 6 Courts have broad discretionary power to control discovery, including the decision to stay 7 discovery. See e.g., Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). When evaluating 8 whether to stay discovery, the court considers the goal of Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil 9 Procedure, which directs that the rule must be “construed and administered to secure the just, 10 speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 11 597, 602 (D. Nev. 2011) (citation omitted). But the Rules do not provide for an automatic stay of 12 discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending. Id. at 600–01. Thus, a pending 13 dispositive motion “is not ordinarily a situation that in and of itself would warrant a stay of 14 discovery.” Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997) 15 (quotation omitted). Nor does the fact that “discovery may involve some inconvenience and 16 expense” automatically warrant a stay of discovery. Id. 17 In determining whether to stay discovery, the court considers whether (1) the pending 18 motion is potentially dispositive of the entire case, or at least of the issue on which discovery is 19 sought; and (2) the potentially dispositive motion can be decided without additional discovery. 20 Ministerio Roca Solida v. U.S. Dep’t of Fish & Wildlife, 288 F.R.D. 500, 506 (D. Nev. 2013). 21 This analysis requires the court to take a “preliminary peek” at the potentially dispositive motion. 22 Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 603 . This assessment is meant not to prejudge a motion’s outcome but, 23 rather, to accomplish the cost- and time-saving objectives of Rule 1 by evaluating the justice of 24 either permitting or delaying discovery. Id. A court may stay discovery when it is convinced that 25 the plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief. Turner, 175 F.R.D. at 555 . Ultimately, the 26 party seeking the stay “carries the heavy burden of making a ‘strong showing’ why discovery 27 should be denied.” Id. at 556 (quotation omitted). 1 Here, the court has taken a preliminary peek at Colvin’s pending motion to dismiss (ECF 2 || No. 79) and is convinced it likely will be granted. Given that the motion to dismiss implicates the 3 || validity of service of process and the court’s jurisdiction over Colvin, the court finds it would be 4 || inefficient to engage in discovery before these threshold jurisdictional issues are resolved. The 5 || court in its discretion therefore will stay discovery pending the outcome of the motion to dismiss. 6 As for Colvin’s request for sanctions under the court’s inherent authority, the court denies 7 || the motion without prejudice. But Hayden is once again advised that although the court will 8 || liberally construe his filings given that he is not represented by an attorney, he nevertheless is 9 || required to follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants. See Ghazali v. Moran, 10 || 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995). Hayden further is advised that under Rule 26(d)(1), “[a] party 11 || may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 12 || 26(f), except in a proceeding exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or when 13 || authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court order.” The court will look with disfavor on 14 || any future filings that do not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the court’s 15 |] local rules. 16 || 11. CONCLUSION 17 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant Gerald D. Colvin’s motion to stay 18 || discovery and for a protective order (ECF Nos. 91, 92) is GRANTED in part and is DENIED in 19 || part as stated in this order. [20] 21 DATED: July 26, 2019 22 Cas ( 23 □□ C.W. HOFF , IR. 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE