Rynn v. Jennings

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: February 5, 2025
• Docket: 4:24-cv-00594
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Richard Rynn, et al., No. CV-24-00594-TUC-JGZ

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER

11 v.

12 Craig Jennings, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel the Setting of a Rule 26 16 Conference. (Doc. 117.) Defendants filed four responses in opposition to the Motion, (see 17 Docs. 135, 138, 140, 142), and Plaintiffs replied, (Doc. 153). Plaintiffs have served several 18 discovery requests on Defendants. (See Docs. 89, 93, 99, 101.) No defendant has filed an 19 answer in this case, and 11 motions to dismiss under Rule 12 remain pending. (See Docs. 20 15, 25, 63, 68, 81, 88, 90, 92, 96, 108, 112.) For the following reasons, the Court will deny 21 Plaintiffs’ Motion. 22 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f)(1) provides that “[e]xcept in a proceeding 23 exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B) or when the court orders 24 otherwise, the parties must confer as soon as practicable—and in any event at least 21 days 25 before a scheduling conference is held or a scheduling order is due under Rule 16(b).” 26 Generally, the court must issue a scheduling order “as soon as practicable, but unless the 27 judge finds good cause for delay, the judge must issue it within the earlier of 90 days after 28 any defendant has been served with the complaint or 60 days after any defendant has || appeared.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(2) (emphasis added). “District courts have broad 2|| discretion to manage discovery and to control the course of litigation under [Rule 16].” 3|| Hunt v. Cnty. of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012). 4 The Court finds good cause to delay issuing a scheduling order until after it rules on the Defendants’ motions to dismiss. “Where, as here, the operative complaint is challenged 6 || by motion practice, ‘delaying discovery until the claims and defenses in the case are better 7\|| defined reduces expenses, minimizes the burden of unnecessary discovery, and conserves 8 || judicial resources.’” Zavala v. Kruse-Western, Inc., No. 119CV00239DADSKO, 2019 WL 3219254, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 17, 2019) (quoting In re Morning Song Bird Food Litig., No. 12CV1592-JAH(RBB), 2013 WL 12143947, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2013)). Plaintiffs 11 |} may not seek discovery before the Court sets a Rule 26 conference. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). 13 Accordingly, 14 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel the Setting of Rule 26 15 || Conference (Doc. 117) is denied. Defendants are not required to respond to Plaintiffs’ 16 || pending discovery requests. 17 Dated this 4th day of February, 2025. 18 Lernnf DLE 20 sennifer G. Z | ps Chiet United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-