Tabb v. NaphCare

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 DANNY TABB, Case No. C21-5541 LK-TLF 7 Plaintiff, v. ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY 8 NAPHCARE, 9 Defendants. 10

11 Pending are defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim (Dkt. 31, 12 Dkt. 48), the undersigned’s Report and Recommendation on plaintiff’s motion for default 13 judgment (Dkt. 34, Dkt. 62), plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 52) and 14 plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery (Dkt. 56). 15 “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in 16 every court to control disposition of the cases on its docket with economy of time and 17 effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 18 (1936). “The exertion of this power calls for the exercise of sound discretion.” CMAX, 19 Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962); see Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 20 (1997) (“The District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its 21 power to control its own docket.”). A court may relieve a party of the burdens of 22 discovery while a dispositive motion is pending. See Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 23 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). 24 1 In light of the fact that there is more than one dispositive motion pending before 2 the Court that could resolve all of plaintiff’s claims and in an effort to not burden the 3 parties with the cost of discovery in the meantime, the Court orders that all discovery in 4 this matter shall be STAYED pending further orders from this Court. Accordingly, the

5 Court also strikes the current pretrial scheduling order (Dkt. 30) and will issue an 6 amended scheduling order at a future date. 7 8 Dated this 15th day of September, 2022. 9 10 A 11 Theresa L. Fricke 12 United States Magistrate Judge

13 14 15 16 17

18 19

20 21 22 23 24