White v. Capital One

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 21, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00633
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 DOLORES WHITE, 10 Case No. 1:24-cv-00633-SKO Plaintiff, 11 ORDER VACATING HEARING AND v. DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 12 STAY DISCOVERY AS PREMATURE

CAPITAL ONE, N.A., et al., 13 (Doc. 25) Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Defendants Capital One and Mary Dickins (“Defendants”)’ 16 “Motion to Stay Discovery,” filed December 27, 2024. (Doc. 25). Pursuant to Local Rule 251, the 17 parties submitted their “Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement – Defendants Capital One 18 N.A.’s and Mary Dickins’ Motion to Stay Discovery” (the “Joint Statement”) on January 15, 2025. 19 (Doc. 27) 20 After having reviewed the Joint Statement, the Court deems the motion suitable for decision 21 without oral argument, and hearing set for January 29, 2025, will be vacated. For the reasons set 22 forth below, the motion is premature and shall be denied without prejudice. 23 I. BACKGROUND 24 On May 29, 2024, Defendants removed this action alleging eighteen causes of action related 25 to Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant Capital One, N.A. from the Fresno County Superior 26 Court. (See Doc. 1). 27 On October 23, 2024, the then-assigned District Judge granted the Defendants’ Partial 28 Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6) and granted Plaintiff leave to amend. (See Doc. 14). 1 That same day the case was reassigned to the undersigned in light of the parties’ consent. 2 (Doc. 15). 3 On November 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 16). On 4 December 3, 3034, Defendants filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended 5 Complaint. (Doc. 17). That motion is currently pending before this Court. 6 On December 27, 2024, Defendants filed the present Motion to Stay Discovery and their 7 corresponding Joint Statement pursuant to Local Rule 251 on January 15, 2025. 8 II. DISCUSSION 9 Defendants seek a stay of discovery pending resolution of their pending Partial Motion to 10 Dismiss. (Doc. 27 at 7, 8.). However, the Court observes that any effort to engage in discovery 11 would be premature at this time. Rule 26(d) states: 12 A party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except in a proceeding exempted from initial disclosure 13 under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court order. 14 15 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d). As it does not appear the parties have held a Rule 26(f) conference, and in 16 the absence of any stipulation or court order, no discovery may be sought. See id.; see also Zappia 17 v. World Sav. Bank FSB, No. 14CV1428-WQH (DHB), 2015 WL 1608921, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 18 10, 2015). 19 Plaintiff asserts that she is entitled to discovery at this time because such discovery will 20 “likely support [her] claims at issue in Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss.” (Doc. 27 at 12, 14.) 21 As set forth above, because it does not appear the parties have held a Rule 26(f) conference, Plaintiff 22 may obtain early discovery under Rule 26(d) only by court order upon a showing of good cause. 23 See, e.g., Roadrunner Intermodal Servs., LLC v. T.G.S. Transportation, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv- 24 01056-DAD-BAM, 2017 WL 3783017, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2017); Apple Inc. v. Samsung 25 Elecs. Co., 768 F. Supp. 2d 1040, 1044 (N.D. Cal. 2011); In re Countrywide Fin. Corp. Derivative 26 Litig., 542 F. Supp. 2d 1160, 1179 (C.D. Cal. 2008). “Good cause may be found where the need for 27 expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the 28 responding party.” Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron America, Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D. Cal. 1 2002). That discovery will “likely support her claims” at issue in Defendants’ Partial Motion to 2 Dismiss does not constitute good cause to justify early discovery at this time. Alcay v. City of 3 Visalia, No. 1:12-CV-1643 AWI SMS, 2013 WL 3244812, at *4 (E.D. Cal. June 26, 2013) (“If the 4 factual allegations do not plausibly support a valid claim, then discovery is not justified and the 5 claim will not go forward.”). 6 Moreover, authorizing early discovery at this stage would not be practicable.1 The Court is 7 vested with broad discretion to manage the process of discovery and to control the course of 8 litigation, see Hunt v. Cty. of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012), with the goal of ensuring 9 the “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 10 Here, Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss challenges the sufficiency of the complaint and may 11 result in changes to the operative pleading. (See Docs. 17, 18.) “A complaint guides the parties’ 12 discovery, putting the defendant on notice of the evidence it needs to adduce in order to defend 13 against the plaintiff’s allegations.” Coleman v. Quaker Oats Company, 232 F.3d 1271, 1292 (9th 14 Cir. 2000). Until Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss is resolved, the actual claims and defenses 15 at issue will be unclear. Where, as here, the operative complaint is challenged by motion practice, 16 “delaying discovery until the claims and defenses in the case are better defined reduces expenses, 17 minimizes the burden of unnecessary discovery, and conserves judicial resources.” In re Morning 18 Song Bird Food Litig., No. 12CV1592-JAH(RBB), 2013 WL 12143947, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 19 2013). See also Contentguard Holdings, Inc. v. ZTE Corp., CASE NO. 12cv1226–CAB (MDD), 20 2013 WL 12072533, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2013) (observing “[i]t would be inefficient and cause 21 unnecessary expense for the parties to engage in discovery on claims that may not survive and 22 defenses and counterclaims that may not be asserted”). 23 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 24 For the foregoing reasons, no discovery shall be sought at this stage of the proceedings. 25 Accordingly, Defendants’ “Motion to Stay Discovery” (Doc. 25) is premature and is DENIED 26 27 1 Nor would holding a scheduling conference, which is why the undersigned has continued the conference “[i]n light of 28 the pending motion(s).” (Doc. 28.) 1 WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The hearing on the motion set for January 29, 2025, is hereby 2 VACATED. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4

5 Dated: January 17, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28