Elliott v. Conagra Brands, Inc.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: April 18, 2024
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01417
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LILLIAN ELLIOT, No. 2:23-cv-01417 MCE AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CONAGRA BRANDS, INC., 15 Defendant. 16 17 Defendant has moved for a protective order staying discovery pending the resolution of a 18 fully briefed and submitted motion to dismiss. ECF No. 29. This discovery motion was referred 19 to the magistrate judge pursuant to E.D. Cal. R. 302(c)(1). The parties initially filed independent 20 briefing (ECF Nos. 29, 32, 34) in violation of the applicable Local Rule, and subsequently filed 21 the required joint statement. ECF No. 35. The court has reviewed all the filings, but notes for the 22 parties’ future reference that only the joint statement should have been filed. See Local Rule 251. 23 For the reasons set forth below, the motion to stay discovery is DENIED. 24 I. Relevant Background 25 This putative class action was filed on July 17, 2023, asserting various consumer 26 protection causes of action. ECF No. 1. On October 2, 2023, defendant filed a motion to dismiss 27 the case in its entirety for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). ECF No. 28 21. The motion was submitted as of December 14, 2023. ECF No. 25. On February 2, 2024, 1 defendant filed the motion at bar to stay discovery pending the resolution of the motion to 2 dismiss. ECF No. 29. 3 II. Motion to Stay Discovery 4 A. Legal Standard 5 District courts exercise “wide discretion in controlling discovery.” Little v. City of 6 Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). The court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as 7 an incident to its power to control its docket. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997); see 8 Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Landis v. North American 9 Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (stating power to stay proceedings is incidental to power inherent 10 in court to control cases with economy for itself, counsel and litigants)). A party may seek a 11 protective order staying discovery pending resolution of a potentially dispositive motion such as a 12 motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See, e.g., Wenger v. 13 Monroe, 282 F.3d 1068, 1077 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirming district court's grant of protective order 14 staying discovery pending resolution of motion to dismiss). The ordinary course of litigation is 15 for discovery to proceed in the face of a pending dispositive motion, and courts do not favor 16 blanket stays of discovery because “delaying or prolonging discovery can create unnecessary 17 litigation expenses and case management problems.” Salazar v. Honest Tea, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. 18 LEXIS 146357 at *4, 2015 WL 6537813 at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2015) (citation omitted). On the other 19 hand, a stay of discovery pending the resolution a potentially dispositive motion furthers the goal 20 of efficiency for the courts and the litigants. See, e.g., Little, 863 F.2d at 685. 21 Courts in the Ninth Circuit often employ a two-part test to determine if delaying discovery 22 is appropriate: (1) whether the pending motion is potentially dispositive of the case, or at least 23 would render unnecessary the discovery at issue; and (2) the pending motion can be decided 24 absent additional discovery. Salazar, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146357 at *4, 2015 WL 6537813 at 25 *2. The first prong is not satisfied if disposition of the motion would likely involve leave to 26 amend. See, e.g., Mlejnecky v. Olympus Imaging Am., Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16128 at 27 *32, 2011 WL 489743 at *9 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2011) (finding a pending motion to dismiss not 28 dispositive of the case where the Magistrate Judge anticipated that, even if the motion were 1 granted, the District Judge would grant leave to amend). “In applying the two-factor test, the 2 court deciding the motion to stay must take a ‘preliminary peek’ at the merits of the pending 3 dispositive motion to assess whether a stay is warranted.” Yamasaki v. Zicam LLC, No. 21-CV- 4 02596-HSG, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157156, 2021 WL 3675214, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2021) 5 (citation omitted). 6 Whether discovery should be stayed pending the outcome of a dispositive motion involves 7 a case-by-case analysis. The factors the court should consider include: “‘[T]he type of motion 8 and whether it is a challenge as a “matter of law’ or the ‘sufficiency’ of the allegations; the nature 9 and complexity of the action; whether counterclaims and/or cross-claims have been interposed; 10 whether some or all of the defendants join in the request for a stay; the posture or stage of the 11 litigation; the expected extent of the discovery in light of the number of parties and complexity of 12 the issues in the case; and any other relevant circumstances.’” Skellerup Industries Limited v. 13 City of Los Angeles, 163 F.R.D. 598, 601 (C.D. Cal. 1995) (quoting Hachette Distribution, Inc. v. 14 Hudson County News Company, 136 F.R.D. 356, 358 (E.D.N.Y. 1991)). The court must balance 15 the harm produced by a delay in discovery against the possibility that the motion will be granted 16 and eliminate the need for the discovery. Salazar, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146357 at *4, 2015 WL 17 6537813 at *2 (citations omitted). 18 B. Analysis 19 The undersigned first considers the two-factor test. It is apparent that the pending motion 20 is potentially dispositive of the case and does not itself depend on any discovery. However, the 21 motion raises multiple arguments, and a “preliminary peek” does not clearly indicate that the 22 motion is likely to succeed. Further, the motion to dismiss attacks the sufficiency of plaintiff’s 23 claims; even if defendant were successful, it is not readily apparent that leave to amend would be 24 precluded. 25 Turning to the circumstances identified in Skellerup, supra, the court considers first the 26 type of dispositive motion at issue. As already noted, it is significant that the pending motion to 27 dismiss is complex: it raises eight different arguments, none of which are straightforward “matter 28 of law” type issues. ECF No. 21. The motion’s complexity and the possibility of leave to amend 1 | disfavor a discovery stay. As to the nature and complexity of the action itself, this case is a 2 || putative class action that may ultimately involve extensive discovery. However, defendant’s only 3 || articulated harm is the costs of responding to discovery. The court finds that this is not a 4 || sufficiently particularized or unique harm to support a discovery stay where it would not 5 || otherwise be warranted. Further, there is no indication that defendant has attempted to meet and 6 || confer regarding managing the discovery process in a manner that reduces burden yet moves the 7 || case forward. Nor does the procedural posture of this case raise any special concerns; the case 1s 8 | inits early phases and progression has been typical. In sum, the undersigned concludes that the 9 || Skellerup factors weigh in favor of proceeding with discovery in the ordinary course. As always, 10 || the parties are strongly encouraged to work cooperatively through the discovery process. 11 HI. Conclusion 12 The motion to stay discovery at ECF No. 29 is DENIED. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 | DATED: April 17, 2024 ~ 15 AMhun—Clorne ALLISON CLAIRE 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28