Raymond v. Conine

Opinion

Steven Raymond, et al., 2:23-cv-01195-CDS-MDC Plaintiff(s), Order vs. Zach Conine, et al., Defendant(s). Plaintiffs filed this case nearly one year ago. ECF No. 1. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on October 10, 2023, which is still pending before the Court. ECF No. 28. Consistent with the Supreme Court's mandate that trial courts should balance fairness and cost, the Rules do not provide for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending. See Ske/lerup Indus. Ltd. v. City of Los Angeles, 163 F.R.D. 598, 600-01 (C.D. Cal. 1995). The parties never filed a discovery plan or a stipulation to stay discovery in this case. IT IS ORDERED that by Monday, July 1, 2024 the parties, after meeting-and-conferring, shall file either: 1. A discovery plan and scheduling order; 2. A stipulation to stay discovery; or 3. A motion to stay discovery. “p, 4 = Dated this 17th day of June 2024. i . a App fx Y if \ rf □ sen Til United States Magistyate Judge