Opinion
22-cv-01603-BLF (SVK)
04-03-2024
PRIYA SIDHU, Plaintiff, v. BAYER HEALTHCARE PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Defendant.
Re: Dkt. No. 84
ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE
SUSAN VAN KEULEN, United States Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is the Parties' joint submission in which the Parties dispute whether Defendant must produce documents in response to Plaintiff's discovery requests. See Dkt. 84. Defendant argues that it is not required to produce discovery because Plaintiff-the sole plaintiff in this action-lacks standing. In that vein, Defendant has moved for the Court to sanction Plaintiff's counsel for failing to sufficiently investigate Plaintiff's claims before initiating this action. See Dkt. 77. In its motion for sanctions, Defendant requests that the Court dismiss this action. See Id. at 9. Plaintiff, meanwhile, has moved to amend her operative complaint, and the proposed amendments would “substitut[e] her out for two new plaintiffs” who can more easily demonstrate standing. See Dkt. 76 at 2. Both motions remain pending and are scheduled for a May 9 hearing before the Honorable Beth L. Freeman.
The Court has determined that this dispute is suitable for resolution without oral argument. See Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).
Despite these pending motions, the fact remains that discovery in this action is not stayed, and no Party has requested that the Court stay discovery. Thus, discovery must proceed. See Apothio, LLC v. Kern Cnty., No. 20-cv-00522-JLT, 2020 WL 5891579, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2020) (“[A]bsent a stay of discovery, the plaintiff is entitled to receive defendants' initial disclosures and responses to its discovery requests.”). Further, regardless of whether Judge Freeman grants Plaintiff's motion to amend the operative complaint, this action will proceed and, accordingly, so will discovery. It also does not matter that Defendant requests that the Court dismiss this action in its motion for sanctions, because “[t]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” Tavantzis v. Am. Airlines, Inc., No. 23-cv-05607-BLF, 2024 WL 812012, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2024) (citation omitted). For the same reason, the Court rejects Defendant's argument that Plaintiff may not obtain discovery because she lacks standing (see Dkt. 84 at 4-5); whether Plaintiff lacks standing is implicated by a pending motion, but the Court has yet to actually determine whether Plaintiff lacks standing.
Defendant also argues that the requested discovery is not proportional to the needs of the case “because Plaintiff no longer wishes to be a part of the case at all.” See Id. at 5. But Plaintiff has represented that her proposed amendments to the operative complaint would “make[] no substantive changes other than to the Plaintiff-specific allegations” (see Dkt. 76 at Notice of Motion), and Defendant does not assert that the discovery in question applies solely to Plaintiff (as opposed to the claims in general as applied to putative class members). Defendant has also already “compile[d] a production” of documents concerning the at-issue discovery requests. See Dkt. 84 at 4. Under these circumstances, the Court cannot conclude that the requested discovery is not proportional to the needs of the case.
Finally, in responding to the at-issue discovery requests, Defendant stated that it would “respond further once the parties have [inter alia,] . . . reached an agreed-upon Protective Order and ESI Protocol.” See Id. at 1. The Parties can easily agree to confidentiality protections and production protocols for purposes of Defendant producing documents in response to the at-issue requests; Defendant need not wait for the Court to enter a stipulated protective order and protocol governing the discovery of electronically stored information before it begins its production.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
• By April 10, 2024, Defendant shall serve amended responses to the at-issue discovery requests and produce non-privileged, responsive documents.
• By April 17, 2024, the Parties shall meet and confer regarding a stipulated protective order and stipulated protocol concerning the discovery of electronically stored information.
• Dkt. 84 is TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED.