Pope v. County of San Diego

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: January 23, 2024
• Docket: 3:21-cv-01102
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 POPE, et al., Case No.: 21-cv-1102-JO-MMP

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY v. PENDING RESOLUTION OF CROSS 14 MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL 15 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., SUMMARY JUDGMENT

16 Defendants. [ECF No. 103] 17 18 19 20 21 22 Before the Court is the Parties’ Stipulation and Joint Motion to Stay Discovery 23 Pending Resolution of Cross Motions for Partial Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative 24 to Modify the Scheduling Order to Extend the Discovery Cut-off and Related Dates (“Joint 25 Motion”). [ECF No. 103.] The Parties’ current deadline to complete all fact discovery is 26 March 29, 2024, and the Parties are to conduct expert discovery thereafter. [ECF No. 87.] 27 Per the Court’s October 20, 2023 Order, the Parties filed their respective Cross-Motions 28 for Partial Summary Judgment (“Cross-Motions”) on November 17, 2023. [ECF Nos. 93, 1 95, 96.] The Parties request that the Court stay discovery in this case pending the District 2 Judge’s ruling on the Cross-Motions, [ECF Nos. 95, 96], “to allow for the delay of costly 3 deposition and expert discovery.” [ECF No. 103 at 2.] 4 “[A] district court has wide discretion in controlling discovery.” Jeff D. v. Otter, 643 5 F.3d 278, 289 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 6 1988)). Upon a showing of good cause, the district court may deny or limit discovery. Fed. 7 R. Civ. P. 26(c) (“The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person 8 from . . . undue burden or expense. . . .”). Specifically, courts have “broad discretion to 9 stay discovery in a case while a dispositive motion is pending.” Orchid Biosciences, Inc. 10 v. St. Louis Univ., 198 F.R.D. 670, 672 (S.D. Cal. 2001) (citing Data Disc, Inc. v. Sys. 11 Tech. Assocs., Inc., 557 F.2d 1280 (9th Cir. 1977)); Rae v. Union Bank, 725 F.2d 478, 481 12 (9th Cir. 1984) (affirming a district court’s decision to stay discovery pending resolution 13 of a motion to dismiss); see also Hachette Distrib., Inc. v. Hudson Cnty. News Co., Inc., 14 136 F.R.D. 356 (E.D.N.Y. 1991) (“[T]he federal district courts have discretion to impose 15 a stay of discovery pending the determination of dispositive motions[.]”). “A case by case 16 analysis is required, since the determination will necessarily be fact specific and will 17 depend upon the particular circumstances and posture of the case at issue.” Orchid 18 Biosciences, Inc., 198 F.R.D. at 672. 19 The Ninth Circuit has not established a clear standard for deciding whether to stay 20 discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending, but district courts have applied 21 several different tests. Primarily, courts have applied a two-part test, asking whether (1) 22 the pending motion is “potentially dispositive of the entire case, or at least dispositive on 23 the issue at which discovery is aimed” and (2) “the pending, potentially dispositive motion 24 can be decided absent additional discovery.” Mlejnecky v. Olympus Imaging Am., Inc., No. 25 10-cv-02630, 2011 WL 489743, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2011); see, e.g., Ewing v. Premium 26 Merch. Funding One, LLC, No. 23-CV-933, 2023 WL 5154520 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2023); 27 Ferrell v. AppFolio, Inc., No. SA CV 23-01353, 2024 WL 132223 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2024). 28 Given the unique procedural procedure of this case and because both Parties agree that a 1 in discovery would conserve resources, the applicability of the test in this case is 2 || limited. 3 In light of the facts and procedural posture of this case, the Court finds good cause 4 ||to stay discovery pending the District Judge’s ruling on the Cross-Motions. Accordingly, 5 || the Court ORDERS as follows: 6 1. The Court GRANTS the Parties’ Joint Motion, [ECF No. 103], and STAYS 7 || all remaining discovery deadlines until the ruling on the Cross-Motions. 8 2. The Parties are ORDERED to contact the undersigned’s chambers within 9 || three (3) business days of the District Judge’s ruling on the pending Cross Motions to 10 dates. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: January 23, 2024 13 Wiha □□□ Serf HON. MICHELLE M. PETTIT 14 United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28