Stoddart v. Express Services, Inc. et al

Filing 85

ORDER denying without prejudice 73 Motion for Discovery signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 5/5/15. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL STODDART,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:12-cv-1054 KJM CKD

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

EXPRESS SERVICES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff’s motion regarding the scope of discovery was referred to the undersigned by

18

minute order entered on May 4, 2015. The motion was originally set for hearing on May 8, 2015

19

before the District Judge. This action is a putative class action and has been pending in this court

20

since April 20, 2012. After filing the motion regarding the scope of discovery, plaintiff filed a

21

first amended complaint. Defendant thereafter moved to dismiss. The motion to dismiss is

22

currently set for hearing on June 5, 2015. Resolution of the motion to dismiss will determine the

23

allowable contours of discovery. Given the expansive breadth of discovery sought by plaintiff

24

and the intrusive nature of the information sought which impacts the privacy rights of nonparties

25

to this action, the court has determined that the motion is premature.

26

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

27

1. Plaintiff’s motion regarding the scope of discovery (ECF No. 73) is denied without

28

prejudice to its renewal after resolution of the pending motion to dismiss.
1

1

2. Before the filing of a renewed motion regarding the scope of discovery, the parties are

2

directed to meet and confer. The motion shall be briefed in accordance with the format set forth

3

in Local Rule 251.

4

Dated: May 5, 2015

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

4 stoddart.brf

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2