Williams v. State of Washington

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 KIRK WILLIAMS, CASE NO. 2:23-CV-914-TL-DWC 11 Plaintiff, v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 12 STAY DISCOVERY STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 The District Court referred this action to United States Magistrate Judge David W. 16 Christel. Currently pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion for a stay of discovery 17 pending the Court’s decision on Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Dkt. 13. Plaintiff has filed a 18 response. Dkt. 14. Defendants have not filed a reply. For the reasons discussed below, the Court 19 GRANTS Defendants’ motion. 20 A court may relieve a party of the burdens of discovery while a dispositive motion is 21 pending. DiMartini v. Ferrin, 889 F.2d 922 (9th Cir. 1989), amended at 906 F.2d 465 (9th Cir. 22 1990); Rae v. Union Bank, 725 F.2d 478 (9th Cir. 1984); see also Ministerio Roca Solida v. U.S. 23 Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, 288 F.R.D. 500, 506 (D. Nev. 2013) (permitting a stay of discovery 24 1 where a pending dispositive motion is (1) “potentially dispositive of the entire case or at least 2 dispositive of the issue on which discovery is sought” and (2) can be decided without additional 3 discovery). Where discovery will not affect the 12(b) decision, staying discovery ensures the 4 defendant’s motion is properly addressed and advances “the goals of efficiency for the court and

5 litigants.” Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). 6 Defendants contend their pending motion to dismiss (Dkt. 11) is potentially dispositive of 7 this case and the motion can be decided without additional discovery. Dkt. 13. Plaintiff contends 8 he should be permitted discovery in order to prove his case. Dkt. 14. 9 If granted, Defendants’ currently pending motion to dismiss could potentially result in a 10 dismissal of all claims against Defendants. Moreover, Defendants’ motion is brought under Fed. 11 R.Civ. P. 12(c), pursuant to which the Court must assume as true the facts alleged in the 12 Complaint. Fajardo v. County of Los Angeles, 179 F.3d 698, 699 (9th Cir. 1999). Plaintiff is not 13 required to produce evidence at this stage to prove his factual allegations; instead, the Court 14 assumes he will be able to prove them and evaluates the legal sufficiency of his claims. Id.

15 Accordingly, the motion may be decided without discovery. 16 Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss could potentially resolve all claims in this case 17 and can be decided without discovery. Further, the Court finds a stay would advance the 18 efficiency of the Court. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendants motion to stay discovery 19 (Dkt. 13). All discovery in this matter is STAYED until the resolution of Defendants’ pending 20 motion to dismiss. 21 Dated this 29th day of August, 2023. 22 A 23 David W. Christel Chief United States Magistrate Judge 24