Earl James Gobin v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

W.D. Washington

Earl James Gobin v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

District Court, W.D. Washington·Decided August 3, 2026·No. 2:26-cv-00182·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:26-cv-00182-BAT v. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, DISCOVERY, DKT. 43 Defendant.

Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation moves the Court to stay discovery pending the Court’s ruling on its motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s second amended complaint. Dkt. 43. Plaintiff has filed a response to the motion, Dkt. 44, and Defendant has filed a reply in support, Dkt. 45. Though the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for an automatic stay of discovery upon the filing of a motion to dismiss, the Court has discretion to stay discovery under Rule 26(c) “to protect a party or person from . . . undue burden or expense.” Neal v. City of Bainbridge Island, No. 20-cv-6025-RSL, 2021 WL 2105301, at *1 (W.D. Wash. May 25, 2021) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)). Defendant’s motion to dismiss argues, among other things, that Plaintiff’s injury is entirely hypothetical because Plaintiff does not allege the product he purchased was actually contaminated. Based on Defendant’s arguments, there appears to be “a real question whether” Plaintiff’s claims are adequately pled. Id. (quoting Wood v. McEwen, 644 F.2d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 1981)). The Court must also consider whether and to what extent Plaintiff would be prejudiced by a stay of discovery. Plaintiff argues he would be prejudiced by “an indefinite suspension of discovery” because information becomes more difficult to locate and witness memories fade with the passage of time, but a delay pending the adjudication of the

motion to dismiss is unlikely to be lengthy enough to cause such problems. Plaintiff offers no reason particular to this case why discovery cannot wait some weeks, and the Court sees none. “It is sounder practice to determine whether there is any reasonable likelihood that plaintiffs can construct a claim before forcing the parties to undergo the expense of discovery.” Rutman Wine Co. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, 829 F.2d 729, 738 (9th Cir. 1987). For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion. Discovery is hereby STAYED until the Court resolves the pending motion to dismiss. DATED this 3rd day of August, 2026. A BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:26-cv-00182-BAT v. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, DISCOVERY, DKT. 43 Defendant.

Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation moves the Court to stay discovery pending the Court’s ruling on its motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s second amended complaint. Dkt. 43. Plaintiff has filed a response to the motion, Dkt. 44, and Defendant has filed a reply in support, Dkt. 45. Though the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for an automatic stay of discovery upon the filing of a motion to dismiss, the Court has discretion to stay discovery under Rule 26(c) “to protect a party or person from . . . undue burden or expense.” Neal v. City of Bainbridge Island, No. 20-cv-6025-RSL, 2021 WL 2105301, at *1 (W.D. Wash. May 25, 2021) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)). Defendant’s motion to dismiss argues, among other things, that Plaintiff’s injury is entirely hypothetical because Plaintiff does not allege the product he purchased was actually contaminated. Based on Defendant’s arguments, there appears to be “a real question whether” Plaintiff’s claims are adequately pled. Id. (quoting Wood v. McEwen, 644 F.2d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 1981)). The Court must also consider whether and to what extent Plaintiff would be prejudiced by a stay of discovery. Plaintiff argues he would be prejudiced by “an indefinite suspension of discovery” because information becomes more difficult to locate and witness memories fade with the passage of time, but a delay pending the adjudication of the

motion to dismiss is unlikely to be lengthy enough to cause such problems. Plaintiff offers no reason particular to this case why discovery cannot wait some weeks, and the Court sees none. “It is sounder practice to determine whether there is any reasonable likelihood that plaintiffs can construct a claim before forcing the parties to undergo the expense of discovery.” Rutman Wine Co. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, 829 F.2d 729, 738 (9th Cir. 1987). For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion. Discovery is hereby STAYED until the Court resolves the pending motion to dismiss. DATED this 3rd day of August, 2026. A BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge

Earl James Gobin v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, (W.D. Wash. 2026).

Pincite

Earl James Gobin v. Costco Wholesale Corporation (Earl James Gobin v. Costco Wholesale Corporation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related