Opinion
Case No. 2:12-cv-01630-LRH-CWH
04-08-2013
MARK SEIDENBERG et al., Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL ROSS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery (#21), filed March 18, 2013.
By way of the motion, Defendants request that discovery be stayed because Plaintiffs have indicated their consent to dismissal of the case. Thus, the only issue that remains is whether dismissal should be with or without prejudice. As a general matter, courts have broad discretionary power to control discovery. See e.g., Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). Given the consensus between the parties that this case should be dismissed, the undersigned agrees that the requested stay of discovery is appropriate.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery (#21) is granted.
________________
C.W. Hoffman , Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge