EpicentRx, Inc. v. Carter

Opinion

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EPICENTRX, INC., Case No.: 20cv1058-JO (MSB)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO STAY 14 COREY A. CARTER, DISCOVERY [ECF NO. 197] 15 Defendant. AND 16

17 AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS (2) SETTING A STATUS CONFERENCE 18 19 20 On May 23, 2022, the parties filed a “Joint Stipulated Motion by Plaintiff 21 EpicentRx, Inc. and Defendant Corey A. Carter, M.D. to Stay Action and Pending 22 Deadlines for 30 Days and Set a Status Conference with Magistrate Judge Michael S. 23 Berg Due to Exigent Circumstances.” (ECF No. 197.) They state that “on Saturday, 24 May 21, 2022, one of Defendant’s two lead attorneys, Donald R. McKillop, along with his 25 wife, was tragically killed in a motor vehicle accident in Arizona.” (Id. at 3.) The parties 26 further explain that Defendant’s other lead attorney, Guy A. Ricciardulli, and Mr. 27 McKillop “were close professionally and personally, and Mr. Ricciardulli will be handling 2 and cutoffs,” as well as to set a status conference with Judge Berg in thirty days to 3 assess the status of the case, set a new briefing schedule and conference date for the 4 issues referenced in the Court’s May 16, 2022 Order, and to assess whether a further 5 stay is warranted. (Id. at 4.) 6 Having considered the contents of the parties’ joint motion, and having consulted 7 with the chambers of District Judge Jinsook Ohta, the Court interprets the motion as a 8 motion to stay discovery. District courts have “wide discretion in controlling 9 discovery.” Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). A district court 10 may stay discovery pursuant to its “inherent power to control the disposition of the 11 cases on its docket in a manner which will promote economy of time and effort for 12 itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Al Otro Lado, Inc. v. Nielsen, Case No.: 3:17-cv- 13 02366-BAS-KSC, 2018 WL 679483, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2018) (quotation omitted). 14 When deciding whether to grant a stay of discovery, the court must consider the 15 objectives of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 “to secure the just, speedy, and 16 inexpensive determination of every action.” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 17 602 (D. Nev. 2011). The Court finds that the circumstances in this case warrant the 18 requested thirty-day stay of discovery. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the parties’ joint 19 motion and issues the following ORDERS: 20 • All discovery is STAYED until June 27, 2022. 21 • The Court VACATES the telephonic Discovery Conference currently scheduled 22 for June 1, 2022, at 11:00 a.m., and all related briefing schedule deadlines. (See ECF No. 23 194.) 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 1 e The Court will hold a telephonic Status Conference on June 27, 2022, at 2 p.m. Plaintiffs counsel is to arrange and initiate the conference call. The 3 telephone number for Judge Berg’s chambers is (619) 557-6632. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: May 24, 2022 _ — 2 FZ 5 Honorable Michael S. Berg United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28