Graham v. Central Garden & Pet Company

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: February 16, 2023
• Docket: 3:22-cv-06507
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 HILLORI GRAHAM, Case No. 22-cv-06507-JSC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: MOTION TO STAY 9 v. DISCOVERY

10 CENTRAL GARDEN & PET COMPANY, Re: Dkt. No. 22 Defendant. 11

12 13 Plaintiff sues Defendant for making misleading marketing claims on its cat-calming 14 products. (Dkt. No. 1.)1 Before the Court is Defendant’s motion to stay discovery pending an 15 order on its earlier-filed motion to dismiss, which will be heard in a little over one month. (Dkt. 16 No. 22; see Dkt. No. 18.) After carefully considering the briefing, the Court concludes that oral 17 argument is unnecessary, see N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), VACATES the February 23, 2023 18 hearing, and DENIES the motion. 19 DISCUSSION 20 “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket stays of 21 discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 22 F.R.D. 597, 600 (D. Nev. 2011). “Had the Federal Rules contemplated that a motion to dismiss . . 23 . would stay discovery, the Rules would contain a provision to that effect. In fact, such a notion is 24 directly at odds with the need for expeditious resolution of litigation.” Gray v. First Winthrop 25 Corp., 133 F.R.D. 39, 40 (N.D. Cal. 1990). Nonetheless, a district court has “wide discretion in 26 controlling discovery,” Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988), and may stay 27 1 discovery for “good cause,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(A). The party seeking a stay bears the burden 2 to establish good cause. See Gray, 133 F.R.D. at 40; see also Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 3 255 (1936) (explaining that proponent of stay bears burden). 4 In this district, courts often apply “a two-pronged test to determine whether discovery 5 should be stayed pending resolution of a dispositive motion.” In re Nexus 6P Prod. Liab. Litig., 6 No. 17-CV-02185-BLF, 2018 WL 3036734, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 19, 2018) (collecting cases).

7 First, a pending motion must be potentially dispositive of the entire case, or at least dispositive on the issue at which discovery is directed. 8 Second, the court must determine whether the pending motion can be decided absent discovery. 9 10 Id. (cleaned up). Both prongs must be met to establish good cause. See id. 11 Here, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is potentially dispositive of the entire case only 12 assuming the Court would not grant leave to amend. See Singh v. Google, Inc., No. 16-CV- 13 03734-BLF, 2016 WL 10807598, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2016) (“[E]ven if Defendant were 14 correct that Plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed as alleged, the Court would consider whether 15 leave to amend should be granted, rendering [Defendant’s] motion not dispositive.”); Gray, 133 16 F.R.D. at 40 (“Defendants have done no more than to argue in conclusory fashion that their 17 motions to dismiss . . . will succeed”). Nor would the motion to dismiss significantly narrow the 18 issues; while Plaintiff brings various claims, all arise from the same overall theory that Defendant 19 markets four products in a similarly misleading way. 20 Apart from the two-pronged test, Defendant has not established good cause. Most 21 importantly, it has not explained why Plaintiff’s pending discovery requests are overbroad (or 22 even what the requests are) or why responding to them now would be unduly costly. It is always 23 true that discovery is unnecessary if a case is ultimately dismissed, and yet the Federal Rules 24 provide for liberal discovery while issues of law remain unresolved. See Gray, 133 F.R.D. at 40 25 (“If this court were to adopt defendants’ reasoning, it would undercut the Federal Rules’ liberal 26 discovery provisions.”). 27 Accordingly, Defendant has not established good cause to stay discovery. 1 CONCLUSION 2 Defendant’s motion is DENIED. 3 This Order disposes of Docket No. 22. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: February 16, 2023 6 7 re JACCQUELINE SCOTT CORLE 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28