Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Koeppel

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 SAN JOSE DIVISION 4 MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC 5 REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-03443-EJD 6 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE 4 MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Vv. Re: Dkt. No. 85 8 GARY MERLE KOEPPEL, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Nationstar Mortgage LLC, U.S. Bank, 11 N.A., and Wells Fargo, N.A. have moved, ex parte, for a protective order staying discovery 12 pending the court’s ruling on the pending Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Motion to 13 Dismiss Third Party Complaint, which are set for hearing on October 17, 2019. The Koeppels 14 || opposed the ex parte motion.

45 “A district court has broad discretion to stay discovery pending the disposition of a B 16 || dispositive motion.” Hall v. Tilton, 2010 WL 539679, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2010) (citing 5 17. || Panola Land Buyers Ass’n. v. Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550, 1560 (11th Cir.1985)). Having considered

18 the parties’ papers, the court finds that the pending motions are case dispositive and that they may 19 be resolved without further discovery. See, e.g., Carter v. Oath Holdings, Inc., 2018 WL 0 3067985, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2018); Pac. Lumber Co. v. Nat’! Union Fire Ins. Co. of >] Pittsburgh, PA, 220 F.R.D. 349, 351-52 (N.D. Cal. 2003). Accordingly, the court stays discovery pending the court’s ruling on the pending motions. If appropriate, the court will entertain a 74 motion to extend discovery following its ruling on the pending motions.

54 IT ISSO ORDERED. Dated: October 7, 2019 25 26 EDWARD J. DAVILA 17 United States District Judge 28 Case No.: 5:18-cv-03443-EJD ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER