Zoom Imaging Solutions, Inc. v. Roe

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ZOOM IMAGING SOLUTIONS, INC., No. 2:19–cv–1544–WBS–KJN 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 12 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION v. TO STAY DISCOVERY 13 EDWARD ROE, et al., (ECF No. 37) 14 Defendants. 15 16 This case concerns the alleged breach of fiduciary duties and theft of confidential 17 information by Defendant Edward Roe and other ex–employees upon their exit from Plaintiff 18 Zoom’s employ. (See ECF No. 1.) On November 8, 2019, District Judge Shubb dismissed the 19 majority of Plaintiff’s claims and granted leave to amend. (ECF No. 53.) 20 Currently before the Court is Defendant Power Business Technology’s Motion to Stay 21 Discovery, set for a hearing on November 14, 2019. (ECF No. 37.) Defendant maintains that a 22 stay should be imposed because Plaintiff has no operative complaint, Defendant anticipates filing 23 another motion to dismiss, and formal discovery has yet to begin. (See ECF No. 56.) Plaintiff 24 disagrees, arguing that because several of its claims against Defendant Roe survived Defendant’s 25 motion to dismiss, discovery should proceed. (See Id.) 26 The Court finds that in the interest of judicial economy, a stay of discovery––with certain 27 exceptions––is appropriate. Currently, the majority of Plaintiff’s claims have been dismissed. 28 (See ECF No. 53.) Plaintiff has stated that it intends to amend its contract and trade secret claims, 1 and Defendant asserts it intends to file another motion to dismiss. Further, because of the current 2 | procedural posture, Judge Shubb has yet to conduct the Rule 26(f) conference, and is likely to 3 | vacate the upcoming initial scheduling conference. Thus, a stay of discovery is in line with the 4 | principles of judicial economy and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Song Fi v Google, 5 | 2016 WL 9185325 (N.D. Cal. April 27, 2016) (granting a stay of discovery prior to resolution of 6 | a motion to dismiss on an amended complaint); Hall v Apollo Group, 2014 WL 4354420 (N.D. 7 | Cal. Sept. 2, 2014) (extending stay of discovery while the plaintiff worked on amending the 8 | complaint); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d) (“[A] party may not seek discovery from any source 9 | before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except... when authorized by these 10 | rules, by stipulation, or by court order.”). 11 In line with the reasoning above, the Court stays discovery—with the following three 12 | exceptions. First, if Plaintiff wishes to conduct early Rule 34 discovery on the two claims that 13 | survived Defendant’s motion to dismiss— claims for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of duty 14 | of loyalty against Defendant Roe (See ECF No. 53 at p. 28)—this stay does not bar those efforts. 15 | See Rule 26(d)(2). Second, should the parties wish to stipulate to any other early discovery after 16 | Plaintiff has amended the complaint, they may freely do so. See Rule 26(d)(1). Third, should 17 | either party wish to present an early discovery request to the Court in an informal telephonic 18 || discovery conference, they may do so following the procedures noted on the chamber’s website. 19 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 20 1. Defendant Power’s Motion to stay discovery (ECF No. 37) is GRANTED IN PART, as 21 described in the order above, pending resolution of any motions to dismiss on the 22 forthcoming first amended complaint (or after Defendants file their answers); and 23 2. The hearing on Defendant’s motion to stay, currently set for November 14, 2019, is 24 VACATED. 25 || Dated: November 13, 2019 Foci) Aharon 7 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28