Element Biosciences, Inc. v. Illumina, Inc., et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 ELEMENT BIOSCIENCES, INC., Case No. 25-cv-08026-NW

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY 9 v. DISCOVERY

10 ILLUMINA, INC., et al., Re: ECF No. 41 Defendants. 11

12 13 Pending before the Court is Defendants Illumina, Inc. and Illumina Cambridge, Ltd.’s 14 Motion to Stay Discovery, briefing for which is complete. ECF Nos. 41, 43, 45. 15 District courts have substantial discretion to control discovery. Little v. City of Seattle, 863 16 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988); U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Lee Inv. LLC, 641 F.3d 1126, 1136 17 n.10 (9th Cir. 2011) (“District courts have wide latitude in controlling discovery, and their rulings 18 will not be overturned in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion.”). The Federal Rules of Civil 19 Procedure do not mandate a stay of discovery in every case in which a defendant files a motion to 20 dismiss. See Gray v. First Winthrop Corp., 133 F.R.D. 39, 40 (N.D. Cal. 1990) (“Had the Federal 21 Rules contemplated that a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6) would stay 22 discovery, the Rules would contain a provision to that effect.”). Instead, the party seeking a stay 23 carries the “heavy burden” to make an adequate showing for why the court should stay discovery. 24 Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975). 25 Defendants argue that their motion to dismiss “may dispose of this entire case” and that 26 “allowing discovery to proceed during the pendency of that Motion Dismiss would be unduly 27 prejudicial to Illumina, in that Illumina would be required to participate in expensive and time- ] The Court does not find this argument persuasive as the moving party’s sentiment regarding the 2 || merits of their mitial motion to dismiss — and the accompanying hope that it will result in a full 3 dismissal of a case with prejudice — is one that is presumably shared by every party that files 4 ||} sucha motion. Despite the significant increase in motions to dismiss, the vast majority of those 5 || motions do not entirely dispose of cases; meaning, efficient discovery is still nearly always 6 || necessary. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 1 (stating that the rules of procedure govern all civil actions and 7 || should be “construed, administered, and employed by the court . . . to secure the just, speedy, and 8 inexpensive determination of every action and every proceeding.”). 9 The Court has considered Defendants’ arguments and finds Defendants have not met their 10 || burden of showing why discovery should be stayed. Further, insofar as Defendants asked the 11 Court to take an early look at the arguments in their motion to dismiss in considering their stay 12 || tequest, to the extent the Court has done so, it finds no additional support to warrant a discovery 13 stay. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise its “broad discretion and authority” to stay 5 14 discovery, and DENIES Defendants’ motion. Jn re Soc. Media Adolescent Addiction/Pers. Inj. 5 15 Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 22-MD-03047-YGR (PHK), 2025 WL 1983422, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 6. || 2025) IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: February 27, 2026 , 19 Noél Wise 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28