Case Information
*1 Case 2:15-cv-00264-JCM-NJK Document 54 Filed 11/24/15 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA NEVADA POWER COMPANY, )
) Case No. 2:15-cv-00264-JCM-NJK Plaintiff(s), )
vs. ) ORDER
)
TRENCH FRANCE SAS, et al., ) (Docket No. 45)
)
Defendant(s). )
)
Pending before the Court is Defendant Siemens AG Österreich’s (“Siemens”) motion to stay discovery pending resolution of its motion to dismiss. Docket No. 45; see also Docket Nos. 44, 48, 52. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition, and Defendant filed a reply. Docket Nos. 47, 49. The Court finds the motion properly resolved without oral argument. See Local Rule 78-2. For the reasons discussed more fully below, the motion to stay discovery is hereby GRANTED .
“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc. , 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). The case law in this District makes clear that requests to stay all discovery may be granted when: (1) the pending motion is potentially dispositive; (2) the potentially dispositive motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a “preliminary peek” at the *2 Case 2:15-cv-00264-JCM-NJK Document 54 Filed 11/24/15 Page 2 of 2 merits of the potentially dispositive motion and is convinced that the plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief. See Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green , 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013). [1]
Having reviewed the underlying motion to dismiss, the Court finds that these elements are present in this case and GRANTS the motion to stay discovery. If the motion to dismiss is not granted in full, the parties shall file a proposed discovery plan within seven days of the issuance of the order resolving the motion to dismiss.
Defendant Siemens’ request for an order shortening time is hereby DENIED as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 24, 2015
______________________________________ NANCY J. KOPPE United States Magistrate Judge
[1] Conducting this preliminary peek puts the undersigned in an awkward position because the assigned district judge who will decide the motion to dismiss may have a different view of its merits. See Tradebay , 278 F.R.D. at 603. The undersigned’s “preliminary peek” at the merits of that motion is not intended to prejudice its outcome. See id. 2