Mata v. Washington State Employment Security Department

W.D. Washington

Mata v. Washington State Employment Security Department

DecidedFebruary 1, 2023

Docket3:22-cv-05054

StatusUnknown

This text of Mata v. Washington State Employment Security Department (Mata v. Washington State Employment Security Department) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mata v. Washington State Employment Security Department, (W.D. Wash. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 Eric John Mata, Case No. 3:22-cv-5054-TLF 7 Plaintiff, v. ORDER 8 Washington State Employment Security 9 Department , 10 Defendants. 11 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s motion to stay discovery and 12 continue the deadlines set forth in the pretrial scheduling order. Dkt. 43. Pending before 13 the Court are Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. 39) and Plaintiff’s 14 motion for leave to amend his complaint (Dkt. 37). The Court finds that Defendant’s 15 request is reasonable and that a stay of discovery is warranted pending the Court’s 16 consideration of Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and Plaintiff’s motion 17 for leave to amend his complaint. 18 DISCUSSION 19 The court has broad discretionary powers to control discovery. Little v. City of 20 Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). Upon showing of good cause, the court may 21 deny or limit discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26( c). Among these is the power to stay 22 proceedings, which “is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the 23 disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 24 1 counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55, (1936) (citing 2 Kansas City S. Ry. Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 760, 763 (1931)). 3 A court may relieve a party of the burdens of discovery while a dispositive motion 4 is pending. DiMartini v. Ferrin, 889 F.2d 922 (9th Cir. 1989), amended at 906 F.2d 465

5 (9th Cir. 1990); Rae v. Union Bank, 725 F.2d 478 (9th Cir. 1984). The evaluation of 6 whether to issue a stay of discovery may be characterized as a “preliminary peek” at the 7 merits of a potentially dispositive motion to assess the propriety of an order to stay 8 discovery during the underlying motion’s pendency. See Solida v. U.S. Dep’t of Fish & 9 Wildlife, 288 F.R.D. 500, 503-504 (D. Nev. 2013) (collecting cases). In doing so, the 10 Court considers whether: (1) the pending motion would be potentially dispositive of the 11 entire case or at least dispositive of the issue on which discovery is sought, and (2) the 12 pending potentially dispositive motion can be decided without additional discovery. Little 13 v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988); Solida v. U.S. Dep’t of Fish & 14 Wildlife, at 506.

15 This “preliminary peek” at the merits is not meant to prejudge the outcome of the 16 motion, which would exceed the scope of the undersigned’s report and recommendation 17 to dismiss. Solida, 288 F.R.D. at 506. The court will assess whether a stay of discovery 18 ensures a defendant's motion is properly addressed and advances “the goals of 19 efficiency for the court and litigants.” Little, 863 F.2d at 685. 20 Defendant has moved for judgment on the pleadings, and Plaintiff has moved to 21 amend his complaint. Taken together, the motions may result in either an amended 22 complaint or dismissal of the entire action. Any outcome would be decided without 23 additional discovery at this time.

24 1 Furthermore, the Court finds a stay would advance the efficiency for the Court 2 and the litigants by avoiding the burden of discovery costs until either Plaintiff amends 3 his complaint or the motion for judgment on the pleadings is resolved. 4 Therefore, Defendant’s motion to stay discovery and vacate the remaining

5 pretrial deadlines is granted. The Court will issue an amended pretrial scheduling order 6 at after resolving the remaining pending motions. 7 8 Dated this 1st day of February, 2023. 9 10 A 11 Theresa L. Fricke 12 United States Magistrate Judge

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 Eric John Mata, Case No. 3:22-cv-5054-TLF 7 Plaintiff, v. ORDER 8 Washington State Employment Security 9 Department , 10 Defendants. 11 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s motion to stay discovery and 12 continue the deadlines set forth in the pretrial scheduling order. Dkt. 43. Pending before 13 the Court are Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. 39) and Plaintiff’s 14 motion for leave to amend his complaint (Dkt. 37). The Court finds that Defendant’s 15 request is reasonable and that a stay of discovery is warranted pending the Court’s 16 consideration of Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and Plaintiff’s motion 17 for leave to amend his complaint. 18 DISCUSSION 19 The court has broad discretionary powers to control discovery. Little v. City of 20 Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). Upon showing of good cause, the court may 21 deny or limit discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26( c). Among these is the power to stay 22 proceedings, which “is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the 23 disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 24 1 counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55, (1936) (citing 2 Kansas City S. Ry. Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 760, 763 (1931)). 3 A court may relieve a party of the burdens of discovery while a dispositive motion 4 is pending. DiMartini v. Ferrin, 889 F.2d 922 (9th Cir. 1989), amended at 906 F.2d 465

5 (9th Cir. 1990); Rae v. Union Bank, 725 F.2d 478 (9th Cir. 1984). The evaluation of 6 whether to issue a stay of discovery may be characterized as a “preliminary peek” at the 7 merits of a potentially dispositive motion to assess the propriety of an order to stay 8 discovery during the underlying motion’s pendency. See Solida v. U.S. Dep’t of Fish & 9 Wildlife, 288 F.R.D. 500, 503-504 (D. Nev. 2013) (collecting cases). In doing so, the 10 Court considers whether: (1) the pending motion would be potentially dispositive of the 11 entire case or at least dispositive of the issue on which discovery is sought, and (2) the 12 pending potentially dispositive motion can be decided without additional discovery. Little 13 v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988); Solida v. U.S. Dep’t of Fish & 14 Wildlife, at 506.

15 This “preliminary peek” at the merits is not meant to prejudge the outcome of the 16 motion, which would exceed the scope of the undersigned’s report and recommendation 17 to dismiss. Solida, 288 F.R.D. at 506. The court will assess whether a stay of discovery 18 ensures a defendant's motion is properly addressed and advances “the goals of 19 efficiency for the court and litigants.” Little, 863 F.2d at 685. 20 Defendant has moved for judgment on the pleadings, and Plaintiff has moved to 21 amend his complaint. Taken together, the motions may result in either an amended 22 complaint or dismissal of the entire action. Any outcome would be decided without 23 additional discovery at this time.

24 1 Furthermore, the Court finds a stay would advance the efficiency for the Court 2 and the litigants by avoiding the burden of discovery costs until either Plaintiff amends 3 his complaint or the motion for judgment on the pleadings is resolved. 4 Therefore, Defendant’s motion to stay discovery and vacate the remaining

5 pretrial deadlines is granted. The Court will issue an amended pretrial scheduling order 6 at after resolving the remaining pending motions. 7 8 Dated this 1st day of February, 2023. 9 10 A 11 Theresa L. Fricke 12 United States Magistrate Judge

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Mata v. Washington State Employment Security Department, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mata-v-washington-state-employment-security-department-wawd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack