Global Community Monitor v. Mammoth Pacific, Lp

Full title: GLOBAL COMMUNITY MONITOR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MAMMOTH PACIFIC, LP, et…

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Sep 10, 2015

2:14-cv-1612-MCE-KJN (E.D. Cal. Sep. 10, 2015)

Opinion

GLOBAL COMMUNITY MONITOR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MAMMOTH PACIFIC, LP, et al., Defendants. No. 2:14-cv-1612-MCE-KJN United States District Court, E.D. California. September 10, 2015

          ORDER

          KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.

         On September 10, 2015, the court heard oral argument with respect to defendants' motion for a protective order to stay all discovery pending resolution of defendants' pending motion to dismiss before the district judge, which is presently set for hearing on October 1, 2015. At the hearing, attorney Richard Drury appeared on behalf of plaintiffs, and attorney Steven Jones appeared on behalf of defendants.

         As discussed in greater detail on the record at the hearing, the court agrees that certain discovery requests should be stayed pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss by the district judge, in light of the substantial time and expense apparently necessary for defendants to respond to those requests, which may ultimately prove unnecessary if the motion to dismiss is granted. However, such reasons do not apply to other, less burdensome discovery requests, for which responses can be provided with little time or expense. The parties have agreed to meet and confer, and prepare a stipulation and proposed order for the court's consideration identifying more precisely which discovery requests should be stayed, and which discovery requests may proceed, pending resolution of the motion to dismiss.

         Accordingly, and for the reasons stated in greater detail on the record, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants' motion for a protective order (ECF No. 38) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

2. No later than September 17, 2015, the parties shall file with the court a stipulation and proposed order regarding a partial stay of discovery in accordance with the above. If the parties are ultimately unable to agree on an appropriate stipulation after exhausting good-faith meet-and-confer efforts, the parties shall contact the undersigned's courtroom deputy clerk to schedule a further telephonic conference.

3. By way of this order, the court expresses no opinion concerning the merits of the pending motion to dismiss, which will be resolved by the district judge.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.