Case 3:20-cv-00603-MMD-CLB Document 50 Filed 04/07/21 Page 1 of 2
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`DISTRICT OF NEVADA
`
`NEXRF, CORP.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`PLAYTIKA LTD., et. al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
` 3:20-cv-00603-MMD-CLB
`
` ORDER
`
`
`
`Before the court is Defendants Playtika, Ltd. and Playtika Holding Corp.’s (“Playtika”)
`motion to stay discovery pending rulings on the motions to dismiss. (ECF No. 29).1 Plaintiff
`responded, (ECF No. 48), and Playtika replied. (ECF No. 49). The court has reviewed the
`relevant pleadings and papers, and, for the reasons set forth below, the court grants the
`motion.
`
`Courts have broad discretionary power to control discovery, including the decision to
`
`allow or deny discovery. See e.g., Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988).
`Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court may stay or limit the scope of discovery
`upon a showing of good cause by the moving party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Meeting the
`“good cause” requirement is no easy task. The party seeking the stay must make a “strong
`showing” as to why discovery should be denied; broad statements about inconvenience,
`cost, or a need for protection are insufficient. Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418,
`429 (9th Cir. 1975); Ministerio Roca Solida v. U.S. Dep’t of Fish & Wildlife, 288 F.R.D. 500,
`503 (D. Nev. 2013).
`
`To determine if a stay of discovery is appropriate pending the ruling on a motion to
`dismiss, the court considers the following factors: (1) whether the pending motion is
`
`
`Defendant Caesars Interactive Entertainment (“Caesars”) joined this motion. (ECF
`1
`No. 35).
`
`-1-
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00603-MMD-CLB Document 50 Filed 04/07/21 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`potentially dispositive of the case; (2) whether the motion can be decided without additional
`discovery; and, (3) whether the court is convinced that the plaintiff cannot state a claim for
`relief. Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013); First Am. Title
`Ins. Co. v. Commerce Assocs., LLC, No. 2:15-cv-832-RFB-VCF, 2015 WL 7188387, at *2
`(D. Nev. Nov. 13, 2015). In order to determine whether the plaintiff can state a claim, the
`court must take a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the underlying dispositive motion—in
`this case motions to dismiss filed by both Playtika and Caesars, (ECF Nos. 26, 28).
`Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 602-03 (D. Nev. 2011). The “preliminary peek”
`does not prejudge the outcome of the motion; it merely evaluates whether an order staying
`discovery is warranted. Id. at 603.
`
`In conducting its review, the court also considers the goal of Federal Rule of Civil
`Procedure 1, which provides that the Rules should “be construed, administered, and
`employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive
`determination of every action.” With Rule 1 as its prime directive, the court must decide
`whether it is more just to speed the parties along in discovery while a dispositive motion is
`pending or to delay discovery to accomplish the inexpensive determination of the case. See
`Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997);
`see also Twin City Fire Ins. v. Employers Insurance of Wausau, 124 F.R.D. 652, 653 (D.
`Nev. 1989).
`
`Having reviewed all of the factors set forth above and after conducting a “preliminary
`peek” of the underlying the motions, the court finds that a stay pending discovery is
`appropriate in this case. Accordingly, Platika’s motion for stay pending ruling on the motions
`to dismiss (ECF No. 29) is GRANTED.
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`DATED: April 7, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`__
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`-2-
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`
`
`