Niyaa Buncch, et al. v. Southern Nevada Regional Housing Authority, et al.
2:25-cv-00660
D. Nev.Aug 27, 2025Background:
- Defendant Southern Nevada Regional Housing Authority (SNRHA) moved to stay discovery pending resolution of its motion to dismiss; plaintiffs opposed.
- The parties dispute whether discovery should proceed while a potentially dispositive motion to dismiss is pending; plaintiff raised concerns about lost/purged phone records and communications.
- The Court adopted a two-part framework (used as an alternative to the stricter "preliminary peek" test): (1) can the dispositive motion be decided without further discovery; and (2) is there good cause to stay discovery.
- The Court found the motion to dismiss can be resolved without discovery and found many of defendant’s arguments about pleading deficiencies and jurisdictional defects persuasive.
- The Court also found discovery unduly burdensome in light of numerous recent plaintiff filings and plaintiff’s failure to address many defense arguments; preservation concerns are governed by Rule 37(e) and case law.
- The Court granted the stay of discovery, vacated the September 17, 2025 hearing, and ordered the parties’ proposed discovery plan due within 14 days after a decision on the motion to dismiss.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the motion to dismiss can be decided without discovery | Plaintiff does not contest that the motion can be resolved without discovery | The motion is potentially dispositive and can be resolved on the papers | Court: Agrees the motion can be decided without discovery |
| Whether there is good cause to stay discovery pending the motion to dismiss | Opposes stay; raises risk evidence may be lost and seeks discovery now | Asserts undue burden, limited public-agency resources, many recent filings, and pleading/jurisdictional defects | Court: Finds good cause given burdens and persuasive deficiencies; stay granted |
| Whether the preliminary-peek test must control the stay analysis | Implicitly relies on merits to oppose stay | Urges limited discovery given dispositive motion; emphasizes costs and merits | Court: Rejects rigid preliminary-peek requirement; applies a two-part, practical test focusing on ability to decide motion without discovery and good cause |
| Whether evidence-preservation concerns defeat the stay | Argues discovery needed to prevent loss/purging of phone records and communications | Points to preservation obligations and Rule 37(e) remedies; disputes need for immediate discovery | Court: Preservation obligations exist; Rule 37(e) and case law address loss; concerns do not outweigh stay |
Key Cases Cited
- Wood v. McEwen, 644 F.2d 797 (9th Cir. 1981) (district court may stay discovery when convinced plaintiff cannot state a claim)
- Alaska Cargo Transp., Inc. v. Alaska R.R. Corp., 5 F.3d 378 (9th Cir. 1993) (discovery cannot be stayed when discovery is needed to litigate the dispositive motion)
- Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579 (D. Nev. 2013) (articulating the preliminary-peek test for staying discovery)
- Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597 (D. Nev. 2011) (preliminary-peek test and Rule 1 objectives in stay analysis)
- Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (burden on movant to show good cause by demonstrating harm or prejudice)
- Skellerup Indus. Ltd. v. City of L.A., 163 F.R.D. 598 (C.D. Cal. 1995) (no automatic or blanket stays of discovery where dispositive motion is pending)