Opinion
C22-1117RSM
05-15-2023
ANGELA HAMILTON and MATTHEW HOGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NUWEST GROUP HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant.
ORDER FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO PARTICIPATE IN RULE 26(F) CONFERENCE
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of Protective Order and Order to Participate in a Rule 26(f) Conference. Dkt. #46. Plaintiffs have filed a proposed Model Stipulated Protective Order consistent with Local Rule 26 but have not submitted a word version of that Order to the undersigned's chambers. Dkt. #46-1.
This case was filed on August 10, 2022. Dkt. #1. A Motion to Dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. Dkt. #37. Defendants filed an Answer, Dkt. #38, and later an Amended Answer, Dkt. #39. A Motion to Certify Class was filed on March 21, 2023. This Motion followed on April 27, 2023. This case was reassigned to the undersigned on May 8, 2023. The parties disagree as to whether discovery can begin pending the resolution of the Motion to Certify Class.
The Court finds that the proposed Model Stipulated Protective Order is satisfactory and it will be entered. The Court further finds that there is no reason to delay discovery on this record and will order the parties to engage in a Rule 26(f) conference immediately. This Court routinely orders discovery to proceed while a class certification motion is pending, and Defendant has provided no valid justification for staying discovery here. If there is an issue as to the scope of discovery it can be raise in a motion for protective order, assuming the parties cannot resolve the issue outside of Court.
Having considered the entire record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of Protective Order and Order to Participate in a Rule 26(f) Conference, Dkt. #46, is GRANTED. The Court will enter the proposed Model Stipulated Protective Order (Exhibit 1 to the Motion) after Plaintiffs submit a word version to the Court's orders inbox for signature. The Court further ORDERS the parties to confer under Rule 26(f) within 10 days of this Order unless the parties can agree on a later mutually agreeable date.