Gamestop Inc. v. Bridgett, et al.,

Filing 34

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 05/23/17 ORDERING that the Motions for Continuance are DENIED; discovery is STAYED pending the resolution of the parties' 9 24 Motions. (Benson, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GAMESTOP, INC.,

12
13
14
15
16
17

No. 2:17-cv-00719-TLN-KJN

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

STEPHANIE A. BRIDGETT, District
Attorney, Shasta County District
Attorney’s Office, in her official capacity;
MICHAEL HESTRIN, District Attorney,
Riverside County District Attorney’s
Office, in his official capacity,
Defendants.

18
19
20

This action involves a complaint for declaratory judgment as to the application of

21

California’s Secondhand Dealer Law to Plaintiff Game Stop, Inc. (“Plaintiff”). Defendants

22

Stephanie Bridgett and Michael Hestrin (collectively “Defendants”) move for a continuance of

23

the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF Nos. 31 & 33.) Plaintiff objects

24

to Defendants’ request. (ECF No. 32.) Having reviewed the parties’ arguments, the Court hereby

25

DENIES Defendants’ request for a continuance and GRANTS Defendants’ request to stay

26

discovery.

27

The Court is afforded broad discretion to manage its calendar. United States v. Batiste,

28

868 F.2d 1089, 1091 n.4 (9th Cir. 1989). Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is currently
1

1

calendared for the same day as Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Defendants argue the motion for

2

summary judgment should be continued because the motion to dismiss will likely result in a

3

dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. Without determining the merits of Defendants’ motion to

4

dismiss, the Court notes the possibility that Defendants motion may be denied. It is economical

5

for the matters to be heard on the same day so as to prevent delay in this matter if Defendants are

6

unsuccessful in their motion. Accordingly, Defendants’ request for a continuance is hereby

7

DENIED.

8

As to discovery, Defendants are correct that the Court is similarly afforded broad

9

discretion in staying discovery in deference to potentially dispositive motions. Wenger v.

10

Monroe, 282 F.3d 1068, 1077 (9th Cir. 2002). In light of Plaintiff’s motion for summary

11

judgment and Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the need for discovery may never arise.

12

Accordingly, the Court hereby STAYS discovery pending the resolution of the parties’ motions.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 23, 2017

15
16
17

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

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