Bates v. City Of San Jose

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: March 11, 2021
• Docket: 5:20-cv-07609
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 FREDERICK BATES, Case No. 20-cv-07609-BLF

8 Plaintiff, ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY 9 v.

10 CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 At the March 11, 2021 case management conference, Defendants requested a stay of 14 discovery until 30 days after this Court rules on the pending motion to dismiss. Plaintiff indicated 15 that he does not oppose this request. 16 A district court has “wide discretion in controlling discovery,” Little v. City of Seattle, 863 17 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988), and that discretion extends to staying discovery upon a showing of 18 “good cause,” see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(A). Courts in this district have applied a two-pronged 19 test to determine whether discovery should be stayed pending resolution of a dispositive motion. 20 See, e.g., Gibbs v. Carson, No. C-13-0860, 2014 WL172187, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2014); 21 Hamilton v. Rhoads, No. C 11-0227 RMW (PR), 2011 WL 5085504, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 22 2011); Pac. Lumber Co. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 220 F.R.D. 349, 351 (N.D. 23 Cal. 2003). First, a pending motion must be potentially dispositive of the entire case, or at least 24 dispositive on the issue at which discovery is directed. Pac. Lumber Co., 220 F.R.D. at 351 25 (citation omitted). Second, the court must determine whether the pending motion can be decided 26 absent discovery. Id. at 352 (citation omitted). “If the Court answers these two questions in the 27 affirmative, a protective order may issue. However, if either prong of this test is not established, 1 at the merits of the pending dispositive motion to assess whether a stay is warranted. Tradebay, 2 || 278 F.R.D. at 602. 3 The Court has taken the requisite preliminary peek at Defendants’ pending motion to 4 || dismiss and finds that it is potentially dispositive and can be decided absent discovery. 5 Accordingly, under Ninth Circuit law and the two-pronged approach applied by courts in this 6 || district, the Court finds that good cause exists to stay discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(A). 7 This discovery stay furthers the goal of efficiency for the court and the litigants, and is necessary 8 to protect Defendants from oppressive discovery based on allegations that might not proceed. 9 For the reasons set forth above, discovery in this case is STAYED until thirty (30) days 10 after the Court rules on the pending motion to dismiss. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12

13 || Dated: March 11, 2021 én) feo Ln home 4 BETH LABSON FREEMAN 15 United States District Judge 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28