Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154934
| D. Nev. | 2013Background
- Plaintiff sued for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant, conversion, fraudulent inducement, unjust enrichment, and fraudulent misrepresentation.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 8 and 12(b)(6) and to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); briefing on those motions is pending.
- After the parties' discovery plan was approved, Defendants moved to stay discovery pending resolution of the motion to dismiss or transfer.
- Plaintiff opposed the stay; the court held a hearing was unnecessary and considered papers only.
- The central dispute is whether discovery should be stayed while the potentially dispositive Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 8 motions (and non-dispositive § 1404(a) motion) are resolved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discovery should be stayed pending resolution of the motion to dismiss/transfer | Discovery should proceed; stay inappropriate unless court is convinced plaintiff cannot state any claim | Stay warranted because dispositive motions (12(b)(6), Rule 8, and §1404) could avoid need for discovery | Denied: stay refused; §1404(a) is not dispositive, and defendants failed to show plaintiff cannot state a claim |
| Whether §1404(a) transfer motion supports a discovery stay | Transfer does not eliminate need for discovery; stay not justified on that basis | Transfer could render local discovery unnecessary and justify a stay | Denied: §1404(a) is not dispositive and does not relieve need for discovery |
| Whether Rule 8 and Rule 12(b)(6) motions are sufficiently likely to succeed to justify a stay | Plaintiff: complaint meets Rule 8 notice pleading; Rule 12(b)(6) cannot be resolved via discovery need | Defendants: complaint too verbose/deficient under Rule 8 and fails to plead alter-ego/fraud necessary for certain claims | Court did a "preliminary peek" and concluded pleadings suffice under Rule 8; not convinced claims will fail; stay denied |
| Standard for granting a discovery stay pending a dispositive motion | Only where court is "convinced" plaintiff cannot state a claim should discovery be stayed | Defendants urged a more lenient standard (some likelihood of success) | Court adopted stricter district standard: stay only if convinced plaintiff cannot state a claim; defendants did not meet this burden |
Key Cases Cited
- 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) (sets three-part test for staying discovery pending dispositive motions)
- Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554 (D. Nev. 1997) (stay requires strong showing; preliminary peek standard)
- Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir. 2008) (Rule 8 notice pleading standard is not onerous)
- Wood v. McEwen, 644 F.2d 797 (9th Cir. 1981) (stating that stay should be ordered only if court is convinced plaintiff cannot state a claim)
- Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dept., 530 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2008) (verbosity alone does not justify dismissal under Rule 8)