Crandall v. Teamsters Local No. 150

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: June 11, 2025
• Docket: 2:23-cv-03043
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARTY W. CRANDALL, Case No. 2:23-cv-03043-KJM-CSK 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR A STAY OF DISCOVERY 14 TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO. 150, et al., (ECF Nos. 29, 30) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Defendants Teamsters Local No. 150 and Dale Wentz filed a motion for a stay of 18 discovery or protective order.1 (ECF Nos. 29, 30.) A hearing was held on June 10, 2025, 19 at which counsel David Graulich appeared for Plaintiff Marty W. Crandall and counsel 20 Costantinos Kerestenzis and Daniel Perle appeared for Defendants. 21 The parties agree that there is only one claim remaining in this action: Claim 22 One, the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA) claim 23 against all Defendants. Defendants move to stay discovery pending the resolution of 24 Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, which is scheduled for a June 26, 25 2026 hearing before the district judge. Alternatively, Defendants move for a protective 26 order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1), which may be granted for 27 1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. 28 Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c 1 good cause. 2 The district court may stay discovery pending resolution of a dispositive motion. 3 See Wenger v. Monroe, 282 F.3d 1068, 1077 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirming district court's 4 grant of protective order staying discovery pending resolution of motion to dismiss). 5 District courts in the Ninth Circuit apply a two-prong test to decide whether to stay 6 discovery. Matthews v. Pinchback, 2023 WL 5836540, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2023); 7 Mlejnecky v. Olympus Imaging Am., Inc., 2011 WL 489743, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 8 2011); Seven Springs Ltd. P'ship v. Fox Capital Mgmt. Corp., 2007 WL 1146607, at *1 9 (E.D. Cal. 2007). “First, the pending motion must be potentially dispositive of the entire 10 case, or at least dispositive on the issue at which discovery is aimed. Second, the court 11 must determine whether the pending, potentially dispositive motion can be decided 12 absent additional discovery. If the moving party satisfies these two prongs, the court may 13 issue a protective order. Discovery should proceed if either prong of the test is not met.” 14 Mlejnecky, 2011 WL 489743 at *6. 15 Here, Defendants have satisfied both prongs. First, Defendants’ pending motion 16 for judgment on the pleadings is dispositive of the entire case. Second, the pending 17 motion does not require additional discovery for its resolution. At the hearing, Plaintiff 18 was not able to identify any argument or legal authority that both prongs were not 19 satisfied. Because both prongs are met and in consideration of the goals of the Federal 20 Rules of Civil Procedure to promote “the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of 21 every action,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to stay 22 discovery pending the resolution of Defendants’ dispositive motion. 23 If Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied, within seven (7) 24 days of the district court’s ruling, the parties are ordered to promptly file a joint status 25 report including proposed dates for the completion of fact discovery, serving expert 26 disclosures, completion of expert discovery, and the dispositive motion filing deadline. 27 / / / 28 An amended scheduling order will then issue. 1 2 | Dated: June 11, 2025 □ - $ . 3 athe 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28