Harrington v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 MICHAEL J HARRINGTON, et al., Case No. 23-cv-06296-HSG 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 9 y MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY Re: Dkt. No. 39 CORPORATION, Defendant. a 12

13 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to stay discovery during the pendency of

14 Defendant’s prior-filed motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 39. The Court finds this matter appropriate

15 for disposition without oral argument and the matter is deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). 16 Defendant argues that a stay of discovery under Rule 26(c) is appropriate here, and the

= 17 || Court agrees: it finds that because (1) Defendant’s motion to dismiss is “potentially dispositive of

18 the entire case” on Jurisdictional grounds and (2) “the pending dispositive motion can be decided 19 absent discovery,” Defendant has established good cause for a stay of discovery. In re Nexus 6p 20 Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 17-CV-02185-BLF, 2017 WL 3581188, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2017). 21 And since the Court has not yet established a case schedule for this matter, a temporary pause on 22 discovery does not stand to unduly prejudice Plaintiffs. 23 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion, Dkt. No. 39, and orders discovery 24 STAYED pending resolution of Defendant’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 28. 26 Dated: 5/29/2024 27 Alapurl 5 > HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 8 United States District Judge