The National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry v. California State Grange et al.

Filing 119

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 4/3/2017 GRANTING 115 Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to stay of discovery until the resolution of the motion to disqualify the Ellis Law Group. (Kirksey Smith, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
----oo0oo----

11
12
13
14

The NATIONAL GRANGE OF THE
ORDER OF PATRONS OF HUSBANDRY
and the CALIFORNIA STATE
GRANGE,

CIV. NO. 2:16-201 WBS DB
ORDER RE: EX PARTE APPLICATION
TO STAY DISCOVERY

Plaintiffs,

15
16
17
18

v.
CALIFORNIA GUILD, formerly
doing business as “California
State Grange,” and ROBERT
MCFARLAND,

19

Defendants.

20
----oo0oo----

21

On March 13, 2017, plaintiffs the National Grange of

22
23

the Order of Patrons of Husbandry (“National Grange”) and the

24

California State Grange filed a motion to disqualify counsel for

25

defendant Robert McFarland, the Ellis Law Group.

26

114.)

27

attorney, Anthony Valenti, who worked at Porter Scott, a firm

28

that represented the National Grange on a prior related matter.

(Docket No.

According to plaintiffs, the Ellis Law Group employs an

1

1

(Pls.’ Mem. at 2 (Docket No. 115-1).)

2

that Valenti worked at Porter Scott, and further concede that

3

Valenti worked specifically on the National Grange’s case while

4

at Porter Scott.

5

117).)

6

Law Group is necessary in light of Valenti’s alleged non-

7

participation in this case.

8

disqualify the Ellis Law Group is currently set for hearing on

9

May 1, 2017.

Defendants do not deny

(See McFarland’s Opp’n at 3 n.3 (Docket No.

Defendants dispute whether disqualification of the Ellis

10

(Id. at 4.)

Plaintiffs’ motion to

Before the court now is plaintiffs’ ex parte

11

application to stay discovery in this case until resolution of

12

their motion to disqualify.

13

each filed an opposition to plaintiffs’ application.

14

Nos. 116-117.)

15

(Docket No. 115.)

Defendants have
(Docket

The court has inherent authority to manage the cases

16

before it.

Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254–255 (1936)

17

(“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power

18

inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes

19

on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for

20

counsel, and for litigants.”).

21

order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment,

22

oppression, or undue burden or expense,” including “specifying

23

[the] time and place . . . for . . . discovery.”

24

26(c)(1).

25

order to show good cause by demonstrating harm or prejudice that

26

will result from the discovery.”

27

1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004).

Stays of discovery are committed to

28

the discretion of the court.

See Little v. City of Seattle, 863

It “may, for good cause, issue an

Fed. R. Civ. P.

“The burden is upon the party seeking the [protective]

Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d

2

1

F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988) (noting that a district court’s

2

stay of discovery “will not be overturned unless there is a clear

3

abuse of discretion”); Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th

4

Cir. 1987) (reviewing district court’s stay of discovery for

5

abuse of discretion).

6

Plaintiffs argue that requiring them to proceed with

7

discovery while their motion to disqualify is pending poses the

8

risk that they will be prejudiced by the Ellis Law Group’s use of

9

privileged information obtained by Valenti in conducting such

10

discovery.

11

pending, plaintiffs represent, there will likely be “substantial

12

disputes” between the parties as to how discovery should be

13

conducted.

14

make it “likely impossible for the parties to [engage in any]

15

meaningful discovery.”

16

(Pls.’ Mem. at 3.)

(Id.)

So long as their motion is

Such disputes, according to plaintiffs, would

(Id.)

The court finds that plaintiffs have shown good cause

17

to stay discovery until resolution of their motion to disqualify.

18

There is evidence before the court indicating that Valenti worked

19

on a case involving the National Grange while at Porter Scott,

20

(see Decl. of Mark Ellis ¶ 11 (Docket No. 117-1)), and that he

21

was, at one point, counsel of record for defendant McFarland in

22

this case, (see Docket No. 112 (referring to Valenti as

23

“attorney[] of record for Defendant Robert McFarland”)).

24

evidence suggests that the Ellis Law Group may have used Valenti

25

in a conflicting fashion in this case, and there is a risk

26

plaintiffs will be prejudiced by the Ellis Law Group’s continued

27

involvement in this case.

28

risk.

Such

Staying discovery will help avoid that

The court is not aware of any prejudice that would result
3

1

to defendants from granting plaintiffs’ requested stay, which is

2

not likely to last longer than one month.1

3

stay makes it difficult for defendants to complete discovery

4

prior to the discovery deadline in this case,2 defendants may

5

seek leave of court to extend that deadline.

To the extent the

6

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ ex parte

7

application to stay discovery until the resolution of their

8

motion to disqualify the Ellis Law Group be, and the same hereby

9

is, GRANTED.

10

Dated:

April 3, 2017

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Defendants note that they recently propounded discovery
on plaintiffs which plaintiffs have yet to respond to. (Cal.
Guild’s Opp’n at 3 (Docket No. 116).) Defendants provide no
explanation, however, as to why a delay in plaintiffs’ response
to such discovery would result in detriment to them.
2

The discovery deadline in this case is currently set
for May 29, 2017. (Dec. 13, 2016 Order at 2 (Docket No. 111).)
4