Watson v. Financial Center First Credit Union

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5

9 Ernest Watson, No. CV-24-00469-PHX-KML

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Financial Center First Credit Union,

13 Defendant. 14 15 Having reviewed the parties’ joint Rule 26(f) report (Doc. 26), the Court concludes 16 it is unnecessary to hold a Rule 16 Case Management Conference and will stay discovery 17 subject to the resolution of Financial Center First Credit Union’s motion to dismiss. 18 It is not clear whether Watson’s complaint or proposed amended complaint state 19 any claims for relief. (Docs. 1-1, 23.) Without knowing which claims, if any, will proceed 20 following resolution of Financial Center First Credit Union’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 5), 21 the Court cannot determine the appropriate scope of discovery. In these circumstances, a 22 brief stay of discovery is appropriate. A “district court has wide discretion in controlling 23 discovery.” Jeff D. v. Otter, 643 F.3d 278, 289 (9th Cir. 2011). A stay of discovery pending 24 resolution of a motion to dismiss “furthers the goals of efficiency for the courts and 25 litigants.” Lazar v. Charles Schwab & Co. Inc., 2014 WL 12551210, at *1 (D. Ariz. Sept. 26 19, 2014) (quoting Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988)). Neither 27 party may send discovery requests at this time. If appropriate, the court will set a discovery 28 schedule after resolving the motion to dismiss and motion to amend. 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS ORDERED discovery is STAYED pending resolution of the motion to || dismiss (Doc. 5). 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the scheduling conference set for September 9, || 2024, VACATED. 6 Dated this 4th day of September, 2024. 7 8 Vy / Vo AY. | G. / 9 LAA ALALLA ee Le A __ _ Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-