Petitt v. Altman

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: March 7, 2022
• Docket: 2:21-cv-01366
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6 7 KARLENE PETITT, Cause No. C21-1366RSL 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 9 v. DEFENDANT’S MOTION 10 TO STAY DISCOVERY DAVID B. ALTMAN, 11 Defendant. 12 13 This matter comes before the Court on “Defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery and Initial 14 15 Case Management Deadlines.” Dkt. # 17. Having reviewed the submissions of the parties, as 16 well as the underlying motion to dismiss, the Court finds as follows: 17 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure impose clear duties to disclose that are triggered by 18 19 certain, specified events. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) and 26(d)(1). The rules do not provide an 20 automatic stay of discovery if a motion to dismiss is filed: such motions are often unsuccessful 21 and a stay could cause unnecessary and significant delays at the outset of the litigation. The 22 23 Court nevertheless has discretion to stay discovery if defendant shows that it is entitled to a 24 protective order under Rule 26(c) “to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, 25 oppression, or undue burden or expense . . . .” See Lazar v. Kroncke, 862 F.3d 1186, 1203 (9th 26 27 28 1 Cir. 2017) (“District court[] orders controlling discovery are reviewed for an abuse of 2 discretion.”). 3 The pending motion to dismiss raises both procedural and substantive challenges to all of 4 5 plaintiff’s claims. A brief review of the moving papers shows that there is “a real question 6 whether” plaintiff has adequately pled her claims, whether the claims are timely, and whether 7 defendant is properly before this Court. Wood v. McEwen, 644 F.2d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 1981). 8 9 Such a showing is only half of the analysis, however. To determine whether the expense and 10 burden of discovery is “undue” and therefore justifies a protective order, the Court must also 11 consider whether plaintiff has shown that she will be prejudiced if a stay is ordered. Id. In this 12 13 regard, plaintiff argues only that her leave schedule coincides with the current initial disclosure 14 deadlines and she would like to move forward with the initial disclosures while she is not flying. 15 She may, of course, make her initial disclosures ahead of the Court-ordered deadline if that is 16 17 most convenient for her. The issue, however, is whether defendant will be compelled to make 18 reciprocal disclosures before the motion to dismiss is decided. The motion is fully briefed, and 19 plaintiff has not shown a need for discovery from defendant at this point in the litigation. Given 20 21 the apparent merit of defendant’s arguments and the lack of any prejudice to plaintiff, a stay of 22 discovery is justified. 23

24 25 For all of the foregoing reasons, defendant’s request for a stay of discovery is 26 GRANTED. Discovery, including the exchange of initial disclosures, is hereby STAYED until 27 28 1 the Court resolves the pending motion to dismiss.1 The Court will consider plaintiff’s request for 2 leave to amend in the context of the motion to dismiss. 3

4 5 Dated this 7th day of March, 2022. 6 7 8 Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28 1 Plaintiff may, however, make her initial disclosures whenever it is most convenient for her.