Phillips v. Ochoa, 2:22-cv-02086

Plaintiff T. Matthew Phillips, next friend of D.M.P. (a minor), sued numerous defendants including Vincent Ochoa, Jon Norheim, the Eighth Judicial District Court, Steve Wolfson, Gerard Costantian, Amber Korpak, and Clark County.
Defendants filed motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 7, 8, 12) asserting defenses including absolute/quasi-judicial immunity, Eleventh Amendment immunity, Rooker–Feldman jurisdictional bar, claim preclusion, and failure to state a claim.
The parties jointly stipulated to stay all discovery (including initial disclosures and a discovery plan/scheduling order) pending resolution of the motions to dismiss.
The stipulation relied on the TradeBay two-part test: (1) whether the pending motions are potentially dispositive and (2) whether they can be decided without discovery, inviting the court to take a “preliminary peek.”
The court granted the stipulation, stayed discovery, and ordered the parties to file a proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order within 14 days after the motions to dismiss are decided.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether discovery should be stayed pending resolution of motions to dismiss	Although disputing the merits, plaintiff agreed discovery could be stayed while motions are resolved	Stay appropriate because the motions may be dispositive and can be resolved without discovery	Court granted stay of discovery
Whether the pending motions are potentially dispositive	Disagrees on merits but concedes motions may be dispositive for stay analysis	Motions could dispose of the case (immunity, jurisdiction, preclusion, failure to state claim)	Court accepted that motions may be potentially dispositive for purposes of a stay
Whether the motions can be decided without additional discovery	Agreed the motions can be decided without discovery	Argued immunity and jurisdictional defenses can be resolved on the pleadings	Court found the motions can be resolved without discovery (preliminary peek)
Timing for resuming discovery if needed	Will meet the court’s timing requirement after decisions on motions	Same	Court ordered proposed discovery plan/scheduling order within 14 days after motions resolved

TradeBay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597 (D. Nev. 2011) (establishes two-part test and "preliminary peek" standard for staying discovery)
Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) (foundation for the Rooker–Feldman doctrine barring federal review of state court judgments)
D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983) (clarifies Rooker–Feldman limits on federal jurisdiction)