Opinion
20cv1058-JO (MSB)
05-24-2022
EPICENTRX, INC., Plaintiff, v. COREY A. CARTER, Defendant. AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS
ORDER:
(1) GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY [ECF NO. 197]
AND
(2) SETTING A STATUS CONFERENCE
AONORABLE MICHAEL S. EIERG UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On May 23, 2022, the parties filed a “Joint Stipulated Motion by Plaintiff EpicentRx, Inc. and Defendant Corey A. Carter, M.D. to Stay Action and Pending Deadlines for 30 Days and Set a Status Conference with Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg Due to Exigent Circumstances.” (ECF No. 197.) They state that “on Saturday, May 21, 2022, one of Defendant's two lead attorneys, Donald R. McKillop, along with his wife, was tragically killed in a motor vehicle accident in Arizona.” (Id. at 3.) The parties further explain that Defendant's other lead attorney, Guy A. Ricciardulli, and Mr. McKillop “were close professionally and personally, and Mr. Ricciardulli will be handling numerous issues related to Mr. McKillop's law practice and family.” (Id.) The parties 1 21cv1558-JO (MSB) move the Court to “stay[] this matter for thirty (30) days, including all pending deadlines and cutoffs, ” as well as to set a status conference with Judge Berg in thirty days to assess the status of the case, set a new briefing schedule and conference date for the issues referenced in the Court's May 16, 2022 Order, and to assess whether a further stay is warranted. (Id. at 4.)
Having considered the contents of the parties' joint motion, and having consulted with the chambers of District Judge Jinsook Ohta, the Court interprets the motion as a motion to stay discovery. District courts have “wide discretion in controlling discovery.” Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). A district court may stay discovery pursuant to its “inherent power to control the disposition of the cases on its docket in a manner which will promote economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Al Otro Lado, Inc. v. Nielsen, Case No.: 3:17-cv-02366-BAS-KSC, 2018 WL 679483, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2018) (quotation omitted). When deciding whether to grant a stay of discovery, the court must consider the objectives of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 602 (D. Nev. 2011). The Court finds that the circumstances in this case warrant the requested thirty-day stay of discovery. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the parties' joint motion and issues the following ORDERS:
• All discovery is STAYED until June 27, 2022 .
• The Court VACATES the telephonic Discovery Conference currently scheduled for June 1, 2022, at 11:00 a.m., and all related briefing schedule deadlines. (See ECF No. 194.)
• The Court will hold a telephonic Status Conference on June 27, 2022, at 1:30 p.m. Plaintiff's counsel is to arrange and initiate the conference call. The telephone number for Judge Berg's chambers is (619) 557-6632.
IT IS SO ORDERED.