Global Comminity Monitor, et al v. Mammoth Pacific, LP et al

Filing 44

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 09/10/15 ORDERING that no later than 09/17/15, the parties shall file with the court a stipulation and proposed order regarding a partial stay of discovery in accordance with this order. 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. 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. (Benson, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

GLOBAL COMMUNITY MONITOR, et
al.,
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16

No. 2:14-cv-1612-MCE-KJN

ORDER
v.
MAMMOTH PACIFIC, LP, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

On September 10, 2015, the court heard oral argument with respect to defendants’ motion

19

for a protective order to stay all discovery pending resolution of defendants’ pending motion to

20

dismiss before the district judge, which is presently set for hearing on October 1, 2015. At the

21

hearing, attorney Richard Drury appeared on behalf of plaintiffs, and attorney Steven Jones

22

appeared on behalf of defendants.

23

As discussed in greater detail on the record at the hearing, the court agrees that certain

24

discovery requests should be stayed pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss by the district

25

judge, in light of the substantial time and expense apparently necessary for defendants to respond

26

to those requests, which may ultimately prove unnecessary if the motion to dismiss is granted.

27

However, such reasons do not apply to other, less burdensome discovery requests, for which

28

responses can be provided with little time or expense. The parties have agreed to meet and
1

1

confer, and prepare a stipulation and proposed order for the court’s consideration identifying

2

more precisely which discovery requests should be stayed, and which discovery requests may

3

proceed, pending resolution of the motion to dismiss.

4
5
6
7
8
9

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

10

the parties are ultimately unable to agree on an appropriate stipulation after exhausting

11

good-faith meet-and-confer efforts, the parties shall contact the undersigned’s

12

courtroom deputy clerk to schedule a further telephonic conference.

13
14
15
16

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.
Dated: September 10, 2015

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