Asana Partners Fund II Reit 14 LLC v. Heath Family I LLC

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: October 1, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-01034
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 ASANA PARTNERS FUND II REIT 14 LLC, CASE NO. C20-1034-JCC a Delaware limited liability company, and AP 10 PINE AND BOYLSTON, LLC, a Delaware ORDER 11 limited liability company, 12 Plaintiffs, v. 13 HEATH FAMILY I LLC, 14 15 Defendant. 16 This matter comes before the Court on Heath Family I LLC’s unopposed motion for 17 protective order and temporary stay of discovery (Dkt. No. 25). Having thoroughly considered 18 the motion and the relevant record, the Court GRANTS the motion in part for the reasons 19 explained herein. 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 This is a contract dispute between Asana Partners Fund II REIT 14 LLC (“Asana 22 Partners”), AP Pine and Boylston LLC, and Heath Family I LLC. In short, Plaintiffs agreed to 23 purchase a residential apartment building from Heath Family I LLC but refused to close because 24 they allege that Heath breached the purchase and sale agreement by allowing the building’s 25 26 1 tenants to pay reduced rent for April and May 2020.1 (See generally Dkt. Nos. 21, 22.) Asana 2 Partners now seeks $750,000 it deposited into escrow and other damages. (See Dkt. No. 21 at 5.) 3 Heath filed a counterclaim alleging that the reduction in rent did not breach the purchase and sale 4 agreement and that Asana breached the agreement by failing to close on time. (See generally 5 Dkt. No. 22.) Heath also seeks the escrow money. (See Dkt. No. 22 at 8–9.) 6 Shortly after the claims were filed, and before discovery was served, Heath moved for 7 summary judgment on its counterclaim, arguing that the Court can resolve this matter promptly 8 based on the undisputed facts surrounding the rent reduction and the plain meaning of the 9 contract. (See generally Dkt. No. 9.)2 Plaintiffs responded by serving discovery on Heath and 10 filing a Rule 56(d) motion requesting that the Court defer consideration of Heath’s motion for 11 summary judgment until Asana Partners could conduct further discovery. (See generally Dkt. 12 No. 19.) In reply, Heath argued that discovery is not necessary to resolve the motion. (See 13 generally Dkt. No. 23.) 14 About two weeks later, Heath moved for a protective order requesting that the Court 15 strike the discovery Plaintiffs served and stay all discovery pending its resolution of Heath’s 16 motion for summary judgment and Plaintiffs’ motion for a continuance. (See generally Dkt. No. 17 25.) Plaintiffs did not respond to the motion for protective order and stay.3

18 1 Asana Partners entered into the purchase and sale agreement with Heath but later assigned its 19 interest in the agreement to AP Pine and Boylston LLC. (See Dkt. No. 21 at 2.) The parties agree that Asana Partners and AP Pine are identically situated for purposes of this matter (see 20 generally Dkt. No. 17) so the Court refers to Asana Partners and AP Pine collectively as “Plaintiffs.” 21 2 Plaintiffs later filed an amended complaint (Dkt. No. 21) and Heath filed an amended answer 22 and counterclaim (Dkt. No. 22) but the only changes were to add AP Pine and Boylston LLC as a party and the parties stipulated that the pending summary judgment briefing applies equally to 23 the amended pleadings. (See Dkt. No. 17.) 24 3 The Court is troubled that Plaintiffs refused to agree to Heath’s proposed stay when the parties met and conferred, (see Dkt. No. 26 at 2), yet chose not to respond to Heath’s motion. If 25 Plaintiffs did not oppose Heath’s motion, the parties should have resolved this matter without seeking the Court’s intervention. If Plaintiffs opposed the motion, they should have filed a 26 response. 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 Local Rule 7(b)(2) provides that “if a party fails to file papers in opposition to a motion, 3 such failure may be considered by the court as an admission that the motion has merit.” Here, 4 Plaintiffs failed to respond to Heath’s motion for protective order and temporary stay of 5 discovery. Therefore, the Court concludes the motion has merit. 6 In addition, the Court independently concludes the motion to stay discovery should be 7 granted. The Court has broad discretion to control discovery. Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 8 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), the Court may limit 9 discovery upon a showing of good cause. It is well-established that “[a] court may relieve a party 10 of the burdens of discovery while a dispositive motion is pending.” Shakir v. Adams, 2019 WL 11 1436903, slip op. at 1 (W.D. Wash. 2019); see also, e.g., Donaghe v. Gollogly, 59 F. App’x 991, 12 992 (9th Cir. 2003) (affirming stay of discovery pending Court’s ruling on pending motion for 13 summary judgment). 14 The Court finds good cause to temporarily stay discovery because Heath’s motion for 15 summary judgment may fully resolve this matter, and even if Plaintiffs’ motion for a continuance 16 is granted, the Court may narrow the scope of discovery. See Burlington N. Santa Fe R. Co. v. 17 Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes of Fort Peck Reservation, 323 F.3d 767, 775 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[A 18 court granting a Rule 56(d) motion need not] permit wholesale discovery. Rather, the district 19 court may tailor limited discovery before again entertaining a motion for summary judgment.”). 20 Because the Court will address the propriety of additional discovery when the Court rules on the 21 pending motions, the Court declines to strike the pending discovery at this time. That discovery 22 is stayed. 23 III. CONCLUSION 24 For the foregoing reasons, Heath Family I LLC’s unopposed motion for protective order 25 and temporary stay of discovery (Dkt. No. 25) is GRANTED in part. The Court STAYS all 26 discovery, including the pending discovery and the initial case management deadlines (see Dkt. 1 No. 5), until the Court enters an order addressing Heath Family I LLC’s motion for summary 2 judgment (Dkt. No. 9) and Plaintiffs’ motion for a continuance (Dkt. No. 19). 3 4 DATED this 1st day of October 2020. A 5 6 7 John C. Coughenour 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26