Doe v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.

N.D. California

Doe v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California·Decided August 23, 2023·No. 3:23-cv-02865·Unknown

Opinion

JOHN DOE, et al., Case No. 23-cv-02865-EMC

Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONTINUE INC., et al., Docket No. 35 Defendants. The Court GRANTS Kaiser’s motion to continue the initial case management conference. The request to continue is reasonable given that Plaintiffs will be filing an amended complaint days before the conference is currently scheduled. The conference is continued to October 17, 2023, at 2:30 p.m. Although the Court is continuing the conference, it shall allow Plaintiffs to proceed with the third-party discovery that they have already propounded (i.e., subpoenas on Adobe, Alphabet, Microsoft, and X). Ordinarily, a party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). See Rovio Entm't, Ltd. v. Royal Plush Toys, Inc., No. C 12-5543 SBA, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169020, at *39 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2012). However, here, there is some dispute as to whether a Rule 26(f) conference has already taken place, whether in whole or in part. Furthermore, discovery may take place in advance of a Rule 26(f) conference if there is good cause. See id. at *39-40 (noting that “[g]ood cause exists where the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party”; adding that good cause is often found in 1 see also Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 275-76 (N.D. Cal. 2002). 2 There is good cause to proceed with the third-party discovery given the nature of Plaintiffs’ 3 privacy claims. Moreover, there is no real prejudice to Kaiser given that the gist of Plaintiffs’ case 4 will more than likely stay the same regardless of the amended pleading. To be clear, however, this 5 ruling does not preclude Kaiser and/or the third parties from objecting to the subpoenas on other 6 grounds. 7 This order disposes of Docket No. 35. 8 Dated: August 23, 2023 12

tir EDW . CHE 14 United States District Judge

Z 18

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JOHN DOE, et al., Case No. 23-cv-02865-EMC

Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONTINUE INC., et al., Docket No. 35 Defendants. The Court GRANTS Kaiser’s motion to continue the initial case management conference. The request to continue is reasonable given that Plaintiffs will be filing an amended complaint days before the conference is currently scheduled. The conference is continued to October 17, 2023, at 2:30 p.m. Although the Court is continuing the conference, it shall allow Plaintiffs to proceed with the third-party discovery that they have already propounded (i.e., subpoenas on Adobe, Alphabet, Microsoft, and X). Ordinarily, a party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). See Rovio Entm't, Ltd. v. Royal Plush Toys, Inc., No. C 12-5543 SBA, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169020, at *39 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2012). However, here, there is some dispute as to whether a Rule 26(f) conference has already taken place, whether in whole or in part. Furthermore, discovery may take place in advance of a Rule 26(f) conference if there is good cause. See id. at *39-40 (noting that “[g]ood cause exists where the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party”; adding that good cause is often found in 1 see also Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 275-76 (N.D. Cal. 2002). 2 There is good cause to proceed with the third-party discovery given the nature of Plaintiffs’ 3 privacy claims. Moreover, there is no real prejudice to Kaiser given that the gist of Plaintiffs’ case 4 will more than likely stay the same regardless of the amended pleading. To be clear, however, this 5 ruling does not preclude Kaiser and/or the third parties from objecting to the subpoenas on other 6 grounds. 7 This order disposes of Docket No. 35. 8 Dated: August 23, 2023 12

tir EDW . CHE 14 United States District Judge

Z 18

Doe v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., (N.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Doe v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (Doe v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related