Summary
staying discovery and vacating initial case deadlines pending ruling on motion to dismiss
Summary of this case from New World Med. v. Microsurgical Tech.Opinion
Case No. C19-5616 BHS
11-01-2019
ARLY BOSH, et. al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.
ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY
I. Background
Before the Court is defendant's Motion to Stay Discovery and Vacate Deadlines for Initial Disclosures and Joint Status Report. Dkt. 17. Also pending is defendant's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (b)(c). Dkt. 5. Under separate Report and Recommendation, the undersigned Magistrate Judge has recommended that the motion to dismiss be granted and that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs have filed a Motion to Amend Complaint, noted for November 8, 2019. Dkt. 19. The District Court has referred this motion to stay (Dkt. 17) to the undersigned. Mathews, Sec'y of H.E.W. v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Local Rule MJR 4(a)(4).
II. Discussion
The Court has broad discretionary powers to control discovery. Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Among these is the power to stay proceedings, which "is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants." Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55, (1936) (citing Kansas City S. Ry. Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 760, 763 (1931)).
A court may relieve a party of the burdens of discovery while a dispositive motion is pending. DiMartini v. Ferrin, 889 F.2d 922 (9th Cir. 1989), amended at 906 F.2d 465 (9th Cir. 1990); Rae v. Union Bank, 725 F.2d 478 (9th Cir. 1984). The evaluation of whether to issue a stay of discovery may be characterized as a "preliminary peek" at the merits of a potentially dispositive motion to assess the propriety of an order to stay discovery during the underlying motion's pendency. See Solida v. U.S. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, 288 F.R.D. 500, 503-504 (D. Nev. 2013) (collecting cases). In doing so, the Court considers whether: (1) the pending motion would be potentially dispositive of the entire case or at least dispositive of the issue on which discovery is sought, and (2) the pending potentially dispositive motion can be decided without additional discovery. Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988); Solida v. U.S. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, at 506.
This "preliminary peek" at the merits is not meant to prejudge the outcome of the motion, which would exceed the scope of the undersigned's report and recommendation to dismiss. Solida, 288 F.R.D. at 506. The court will assess whether a stay of discovery ensures a defendant's motion is properly addressed and advances "the goals of efficiency for the court and litigants." Little, 863 F.2d at 685.
Defendants have moved for dismissal of this case pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Dkt. 17. Furthermore, Plaintiffs have moved to amend their complaint. See Dkt. 19. Taken together, the motions may result in either an amended complaint or dismissal of the entire action. Any outcome would be decided without additional discovery. Furthermore, the Court finds a stay would advance the efficiency for the Court and the litigants by avoiding the burden of discovery costs until either Plaintiffs amend their complaint or the Motion to Dismiss is resolved.
Therefore, Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery and Vacate Deadlines for Initial Disclosures and Joint Status Report (Dkt. 17) is granted. Discovery is stayed in this case until resolution of the Motion to Dismiss.
Dated this 1st day of November, 2019.
/s/_________
Theresa L. Fricke
United States Magistrate Judge