Puget Soundkeeper Alliance v. United Rentals (North America) Inc

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: July 11, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-02099
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 1

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 PUGET SOUNDKEEPER Case No. 2:24-cv-02099-RAJ ALLIANCE, 10 ORDER Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 UNITED RENTALS (NORTH 13 AMERICA), INC.,

14 Defendant. 15 16 17 18 I. INTRODUCTION 19 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery 20 Pending Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. # 17. Plaintiff opposes the Motion. Dkt. # 20. The 21 Court has considered the Motion, the submissions in support and in opposition of the 22 Motion, the balance of the record, and the applicable law. For the reasons set forth below, 23 the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion. 24 25 26 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 A district court has discretion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) to limit 3 discovery “for good cause . . . to protect a party or person from annoyance, 4 embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). 5 The Court may “stay discovery when it is convinced that the plaintiff will be unable to 6 state a claim for relief.” Wenger v. Monroe, 282 F.3d 1068, 1077 (9th Cir. 2002). 7 However, “speculation does not satisfy Rule 26(c)’s good cause requirement.” Gray v. 8 First Winthrop Corp., 133 F.R.D. 39, 40 (N.D. Cal. 1990) (finding that the defendants' 9 argument that their motions to dismiss would succeed did not constitute a showing of 10 good cause). 11 Defendant requests that the Court stay discovery deadlines and issuance of its Rule 12 16(b) scheduling order pending resolution of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. # 17 13 at 1. Defendant argues a stay is appropriate because its pending Motion to Dismiss may 14 dispose of the entire case, and “[a] short stay of discovery will prevent the parties and the 15 court from incurring additional costs and expending unnecessary resources.” Id. at 1–2. 16 Plaintiff argues that staying discovery pending resolution of a motion to dismiss is the 17 exception and not the rule, and Defendant has not met its burden of showing good cause 18 because it “makes no argument other than pointing to its pending Motion to Dismiss to 19 justify a stay.” Dkt. # 20 at 3–4. Plaintiff also argues the Motion to Dismiss is unlikely 20 to succeed. Id. at 4–8. 21 The Court finds that a stay of discovery is not warranted. A motion to dismiss, on 22 its own, is not grounds for staying discovery. See, e.g., Gray, 133 F.R.D. at 40; Rosario 23 v. Starbucks Corp., No. 16-cv-1951, 2017 WL 4122569, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 18, 24 2017). Defendant points to no other justification for its request. At this stage, the Court 25 26 1 is not convinced the Motion to Dismiss will dispose of this case, and Defendant has not 2 met its burden to show that there is good cause to stay discovery. 3 III. CONCLUSION 4 For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Stay 5 Discovery Pending Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. # 17. 6 7 Dated this 11th day of July, 2025.

9 A

10 11 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 12 United States District Judge

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26