Smith v. Apple, Inc.

N.D. California

Smith v. Apple, Inc.

DecidedMay 17, 2022

Docket4:21-cv-09527

StatusUnknown

This text of Smith v. Apple, Inc. (Smith v. Apple, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. Apple, Inc., (N.D. Cal. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CHRIS SMITH, et al., Case No. 21-cv-09527-HSG

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 37 10 APPLE, INC., 11 Defendant.

12 13 Pending before the Court is Defendant Apple, Inc.’s Motion to Stay Discovery, briefing for 14 which is complete. See Dkt. Nos. 37, 40, 43. 15 District courts have “wide discretion” to control discovery. Little v. City of Seattle, 863 16 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). In evaluating the propriety of a request to stay discovery, the Court 17 is mindful that the party seeking a discovery stay carries the “heavy burden” to make an adequate 18 showing for why discovery should be denied. Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 19 (9th Cir. 1975). In moving to stay discovery, Defendant argues that its dismissal motion “will be 20 potentially dispositive of the entire case or, at a minimum, of issues at which discovery is 21 directed” and that a stay “would promote efficiency and avoid prejudice to Apple.” Mot. at 9-10. 22 After carefully considering Defendant’s arguments in support of a stay, the Court finds 23 Defendant has not met its burden of showing why discovery should be stayed, and declines to 24 enter the requested stay. As Plaintiffs point out, there is no provision in the Federal Rules of Civil 25 Procedure that mandates (or even suggests) a stay of discovery in every case in which a defendant 26 files a motion to dismiss. See Gray v. First Winthrop Corp., 133 F.R.D. 39, 40 (N.D. Cal. 1990) 27 (“Had the Federal Rules contemplated that a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6) 1 Defendant asks the Court to take a “preliminary peek” at the arguments in its dismissal motion in 2 || considering its stay request, the Court has done so, and finds that a stay is not warranted based on 3 anything in that motion. 4 Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion to stay discovery. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: 5/17/2022

S. GILLIAM, JR. □ 9 United States District Judge 10 11 a 12

15 16

= 17

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CHRIS SMITH, et al., Case No. 21-cv-09527-HSG

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 37 10 APPLE, INC., 11 Defendant.

12 13 Pending before the Court is Defendant Apple, Inc.’s Motion to Stay Discovery, briefing for 14 which is complete. See Dkt. Nos. 37, 40, 43. 15 District courts have “wide discretion” to control discovery. Little v. City of Seattle, 863 16 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). In evaluating the propriety of a request to stay discovery, the Court 17 is mindful that the party seeking a discovery stay carries the “heavy burden” to make an adequate 18 showing for why discovery should be denied. Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 19 (9th Cir. 1975). In moving to stay discovery, Defendant argues that its dismissal motion “will be 20 potentially dispositive of the entire case or, at a minimum, of issues at which discovery is 21 directed” and that a stay “would promote efficiency and avoid prejudice to Apple.” Mot. at 9-10. 22 After carefully considering Defendant’s arguments in support of a stay, the Court finds 23 Defendant has not met its burden of showing why discovery should be stayed, and declines to 24 enter the requested stay. As Plaintiffs point out, there is no provision in the Federal Rules of Civil 25 Procedure that mandates (or even suggests) a stay of discovery in every case in which a defendant 26 files a motion to dismiss. See Gray v. First Winthrop Corp., 133 F.R.D. 39, 40 (N.D. Cal. 1990) 27 (“Had the Federal Rules contemplated that a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6) 1 Defendant asks the Court to take a “preliminary peek” at the arguments in its dismissal motion in 2 || considering its stay request, the Court has done so, and finds that a stay is not warranted based on 3 anything in that motion. 4 Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion to stay discovery. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: 5/17/2022

S. GILLIAM, JR. □ 9 United States District Judge 10 11 a 12

15 16

= 17

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Smith v. Apple, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-apple-inc-cand-2022.

Opinion

S. GILLIAM, JR. □ 9 United States District Judge 10 11 a 12

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack