Sidhu v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 PRIYA SIDHU, Case No. 22-cv-01603-BLF (SVK)

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 84 10 BAYER HEALTHCARE PHARMACEUTICALS INC., 11 Defendant. 12 Before the Court is the Parties’ joint submission in which the Parties dispute whether 13 Defendant must produce documents in response to Plaintiff’s discovery requests.1 See Dkt. 84. 14 Defendant argues that it is not required to produce discovery because Plaintiff—the sole plaintiff 15 in this action—lacks standing. In that vein, Defendant has moved for the Court to sanction 16 Plaintiff’s counsel for failing to sufficiently investigate Plaintiff’s claims before initiating this 17 action. See Dkt. 77. In its motion for sanctions, Defendant requests that the Court dismiss this 18 action. See id. at 9. Plaintiff, meanwhile, has moved to amend her operative complaint, and the 19 proposed amendments would “substitut[e] her out for two new plaintiffs” who can more easily 20 demonstrate standing. See Dkt. 76 at 2. Both motions remain pending and are scheduled for a 21 May 9 hearing before the Honorable Beth L. Freeman. 22 Despite these pending motions, the fact remains that discovery in this action is not stayed, 23 and no Party has requested that the Court stay discovery. Thus, discovery must proceed. See 24 Apothio, LLC v. Kern Cnty., No. 20-cv-00522-JLT, 2020 WL 5891579, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 25 2020) (“[A]bsent a stay of discovery, the plaintiff is entitled to receive defendants’ initial 26 27 1 disclosures and responses to its discovery requests.”). Further, regardless of whether Judge 2 Freeman grants Plaintiff’s motion to amend the operative complaint, this action will proceed and, 3 accordingly, so will discovery. It also does not matter that Defendant requests that the Court 4 dismiss this action in its motion for sanctions, because “[t]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do 5 not provide for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is 6 pending.” Tavantzis v. Am. Airlines, Inc., No. 23-cv-05607-BLF, 2024 WL 812012, at *1 (N.D. 7 Cal. Feb. 23, 2024) (citation omitted). For the same reason, the Court rejects Defendant’s 8 argument that Plaintiff may not obtain discovery because she lacks standing (see Dkt. 84 at 4-5); 9 whether Plaintiff lacks standing is implicated by a pending motion, but the Court has yet to 10 actually determine whether Plaintiff lacks standing. 11 Defendant also argues that the requested discovery is not proportional to the needs of the 12 case “because Plaintiff no longer wishes to be a part of the case at all.” See id. at 5. But Plaintiff 13 has represented that her proposed amendments to the operative complaint would “make[] no 14 substantive changes other than to the Plaintiff-specific allegations” (see Dkt. 76 at Notice of 15 Motion), and Defendant does not assert that the discovery in question applies solely to Plaintiff (as 16 opposed to the claims in general as applied to putative class members). Defendant has also 17 already “compile[d] a production” of documents concerning the at-issue discovery requests. See 18 Dkt. 84 at 4. Under these circumstances, the Court cannot conclude that the requested discovery is 19 not proportional to the needs of the case. 20 Finally, in responding to the at-issue discovery requests, Defendant stated that it would 21 “respond further once the parties have [inter alia,] . . . reached an agreed-upon Protective Order 22 and ESI Protocol.” See id. at 1. The Parties can easily agree to confidentiality protections and 23 production protocols for purposes of Defendant producing documents in response to the at-issue 24 requests; Defendant need not wait for the Court to enter a stipulated protective order and protocol 25 governing the discovery of electronically stored information before it begins its production. 26 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 27  By April 10, 2024, Defendant shall serve amended responses to the at-issue discovery ] e By April 17, 2024, the Parties shall meet and confer regarding a stipulated protective order 2 and stipulated protocol concerning the discovery of electronically stored information. 3 e Dkt. 84is TERMINATED. 4 SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: April 3, 2024 6 7 Sesion Ye SUSAN VAN KEULEN 8 United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 1]

13 «4 o

(«17

O Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28