Golden Entertainment, Inc. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Company, 2:21-cv-00969

Golden Entertainment, Inc. sued Factory Mutual Insurance Company (FMIC) asserting a single claim for tortious breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing regarding an insurance contract.
Discovery was previously stayed pending the outcomes of related key insurance litigation in state and federal courts, but the stay was lifted in August 2023 due to the urgency of Golden's claims and anticipated delays in related appellate decisions.
After partial dismissal of its Second Amended Complaint in January 2025, Golden filed a Third Amended Complaint (TAC), to which FMIC again responded with a motion to dismiss or strike.
The parties have actively engaged in extensive discovery: over 33,000 pages produced by FMIC, several sets of written discovery, and numerous scheduled depositions.
Pending the court's resolution on the motion to dismiss the TAC, the parties jointly stipulated to stay discovery and all related deadlines, arguing it would promote efficiency, reduce expense, and not prejudice either side.
No trial date has been set, and this marks the third joint request to extend discovery deadlines. Both parties have agreed to propose a new discovery schedule after the motion is resolved.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ongoing discovery should be stayed pending resolution of FMIC's motion to dismiss the TAC	A stay will protect Golden’s ability to conduct discovery on FMIC’s defenses and claims after the pleadings are settled.	Staying discovery will avoid unnecessary costs and judicial resources, as the motion could resolve or narrow the issues.	Court granted stay, vacated deadlines pending resolution of the motion.

Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681 (9th Cir. 1988) (courts have broad discretion to control discovery)
Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597 (D. Nev. 2011) (discovery stays can be warranted when a dispositive motion is pending and addresses key issues)