WSTCO Quality Feed and Supply, LLC v. Ada

Opinion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT WSTCO QUALITY FEED AND SUPPLY, Case No.: 17-cv-00127 LLC, Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO STAY DISCOVERY AND TAKING vs. MOTIONS TO DISMISS UNDER ADVISEMENT ANTHONY J. ADA, et al., Defendants.

Before the Court are motions to stay discovery filed by Defendants Jay Rojas (Aug. 30, 2018, ECF No. 72) and GALC (Aug. 30, 2018, ECF No. 73). Plaintiff WSTCO Quality Feed and Supply filed an opposition (Sept. 20, 2018, ECF No. 78), and defendants filed replies (GALC Reply, Sept. 24, 2018, ECF No. 79; Rojas Reply, ECF No. 83, Oct. 9, 2018). The Court has carefully considered these papers and finds good cause to stay discovery pending the determination of defendants’ motions to dismiss (GALC, July 31, 2018, ECF No. 65; Rojas, Sept. 4, 2018, ECF No. 75), which are based in part on the defense of qualified immunity. See Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 597–98 (1998) (trial court “must exercise its discretion so that officials are not subjected to unnecessary and burdensome discovery or trial proceedings”); Grenning v. Klemme, 34 F. Supp. 3d 1144, 1153 (E.D. Wash. 2014) (“district courts generally stay discovery until the issue of qualified immunity is resolved”). At the same time, the Court is mindful of the need to press forward in this matter and Plaintiff’s legitimate interest in conducting discovery as soon as possible. The motions to dismiss are fully briefed, and neither party has filed a request for oral argument pursuant to CVLR 7(1). Therefore, the

Court takes the motions to dismiss under advisement and will endeavor to issue its ruling as soon as

possible. The motions to stay discovery (ECF No. 72 and 73) are GRANTED. Furthermore, GALC’s Motion to Calendar Motion to Stay Discovery (Nov. 6, 2018, ECF No. 84) is DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of November, 2018. Matas Chief Judge, District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, sitting by designation