Bosh v. United States

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: November 1, 2019
• Docket: 3:19-cv-05616
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 ARLY BOSH, et. al., Case No. C19-5616 BHS 7 Plaintiffs, v. ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY 8 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 9 Defendant. 10

11 I. Background 12 Before the Court is defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery and Vacate Deadlines for 13 Initial Disclosures and Joint Status Report. Dkt. 17. Also pending is defendant’s Motion to 14 Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (b)(c). Dkt. 5. Under separate Report and 15 Recommendation, the undersigned Magistrate Judge has recommended that the motion to 16 dismiss be granted and that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs have filed a 17 Motion to Amend Complaint, noted for November 8, 2019. Dkt. 19. The District Court has 18 referred this motion to stay (Dkt. 17) to the undersigned. Mathews, Sec’y of H.E.W. v. Weber, 19 423 U.S. 261 (1976); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Local Rule MJR 4(a)(4). 20 II. Discussion 21 The Court has broad discretionary powers to control discovery. Little v. City of Seattle, 22 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Among these is the power to stay 23 proceedings, which “is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition 24 1 of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for 2 litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55, (1936) (citing Kansas City S. Ry. Co. v. 3 United States, 282 U.S. 760, 763 (1931)). 4 A court may relieve a party of the burdens of discovery while a dispositive motion is

5 pending. DiMartini v. Ferrin, 889 F.2d 922 (9th Cir. 1989), amended at 906 F.2d 465 (9th Cir. 6 1990); Rae v. Union Bank, 725 F.2d 478 (9th Cir. 1984). The evaluation of whether to issue a 7 stay of discovery may be characterized as a “preliminary peek” at the merits of a potentially 8 dispositive motion to assess the propriety of an order to stay discovery during the underlying 9 motion’s pendency. See Solida v. U.S. Dep’t of Fish & Wildlife, 288 F.R.D. 500, 503-504 (D. 10 Nev. 2013) (collecting cases). In doing so, the Court considers whether: (1) the pending motion 11 would be potentially dispositive of the entire case or at least dispositive of the issue on which 12 discovery is sought, and (2) the pending potentially dispositive motion can be decided without 13 additional discovery. Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988); Solida v. U.S. 14 Dep’t of Fish & Wildlife, at 506.

15 This “preliminary peek” at the merits is not meant to prejudge the outcome of the motion, 16 which would exceed the scope of the undersigned’s report and recommendation to dismiss. 17 Solida, 288 F.R.D. at 506. The court will assess whether a stay of discovery ensures a 18 defendant's motion is properly addressed and advances “the goals of efficiency for the court and 19 litigants.” Little, 863 F.2d at 685. 20 Defendants have moved for dismissal of this case pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of 21 subject matter jurisdiction. See Dkt. 17. Furthermore, Plaintiffs have moved to amend their 22 complaint. See Dkt. 19. Taken together, the motions may result in either an amended complaint 23 or dismissal of the entire action. Any outcome would be decided without additional discovery.

24 1 Furthermore, the Court finds a stay would advance the efficiency for the Court and the litigants 2 by avoiding the burden of discovery costs until either Plaintiffs amend their complaint or the 3 Motion to Dismiss is resolved. 4 Therefore, Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery and Vacate Deadlines for Initial

5 Disclosures and Joint Status Report (Dkt. 17) is granted. Discovery is stayed in this case until 6 resolution of the Motion to Dismiss. 7 8 Dated this 1st day of November, 2019. 9 10 A 11 Theresa L. Fricke 12 United States Magistrate Judge

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24