Bryant et al v. Service Corporation International et al

Filing 269

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND SANCTIONS, SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE, AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR A STAY 254 (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/24/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. SERVICE CORPORATION INTERNATIONAL, et al., Defendants. / CLAUDE BRYANT, et al., Plaintiffs, No. C 08-01190 SI ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND SANCTIONS, SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE, AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR A STAY IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiffs have filed a motion for protective order and sanctions and a motion to stay proceedings in this case. The motions were filed as a result of defense counsel's ex parte contact with members of the plaintiff class in Stickle v. SCI Western Market Support Center, L.P., No. 08083 (D. Ariz.), the FLSA counterpart to this action. Plaintiffs have filed identical motions in Stickle. The district court in that case has denied the stay motion and set the sanctions motion for oral argument on April 5, 2010. While Stickle has been certified as an FLSA collective action, the

present matter is proceeding on an individual basis, and the two Stickle class members with whom defense counsel communicated are not plaintiffs in the present action. Accordingly, the Court wishes to defer ruling on plaintiffs' sanctions motion until the District of Arizona has had a chance to do so. Oral argument on plaintiffs' motion for sanctions is therefore continued to Friday, April 23, 2010, at 9:00 a.m. (Docket No. 249). The parties are directed to appear for a status conference at 3:00 p.m. the same day. The parties should be prepared to discuss the current status of these proceedings at the conference. Plaintiffs seek a stay of proceedings pending the Court's resolution of the sanctions motion.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

As defendants point out, no "proceedings" are currently ongoing in this case other than discovery. Plaintiffs assert that they will be prejudiced if discovery is not stayed because they "would be forced to make a choice as to whether to confer with defense counsel whois subject to disqualification or not to confer with defense counsel and thereby prejudice their ability to obtain complete and adequate discovery responses from defendants." Reply at 1-2. In the Court's view, plaintiffs have not presented a persuasive justification for staying discovery or any other proceedings in this case. Plaintiffs' motion for a stay is therefore DENIED. (Docket No. 254).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 24, 2010

SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge

2