City and County of San Francisco et al v. United States Postal Service et al

Filing 201

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STAY, MODIFYING SCHEDULE. Pretrial Conference set for 12/15/2011 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Richard Seeborg. Jury Selection set for 1/9/2012 09:00 AM; Jury Trial set for 1/9/2012 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Richard Seeborg. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 6/24/11. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/24/2011)

*E-Filed 6/24/11*

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

8

12

CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al.,

13
14
15

Plaintiffs,
v.

No. C 09-1964 RS
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO STAY, MODIFYING
SCHEDULE

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,

16
17
18

Defendant.
____________________________________/
The parties have filed competing motions. Plaintiffs request a stay of all litigation (save

19

defendant’s deadline to exchange its rebuttal expert reports) pending resolution of a regulatory

20

complaint recently filed before the Postal Regulatory Commission (“PRC”). Defendants oppose a

21

stay, and argue that fairness and efficiency require that the case continue to summary judgment and,

22

if need be, trial. They do, however, request a modification of the dispositive motion hearing date so

23

that the filing date will fall after defendants receive certain discovery materials. Although plaintiffs

24

request to stay the entire matter, they nonetheless oppose moving out the dispositive motion

25

deadline.

26

A court may in its discretion stay proceedings in appropriate circumstances. Generally, a

27

court looks to three factors: (1) whether a stay would unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical

28

disadvantage to the nonmoving party; (2) whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and trial
NO. C 09-1964 RS
ORDER

1

of the case; and (3) whether discovery is complete and whether a trial date has been set. See, e.g., In

2

re Cygnus Telecom. Tech., LLC Patent Litig., 385 F. Supp. 2d 1022, 1023 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (citing

3

Xerox Corp. v. 3Com Corp., 69 F. Supp. 2d 404, 406 (W.D. N.Y. 1999); ASCII Corp. v. STD Entm’t

4

USA, Inc., 844 F. Supp. 1378, 1380 (N.D. Cal. 1994)).

5

A stay is not warranted here. The Postal Service argues, as an initial matter, that it will be

6

unduly prejudiced by waiting for a resolution of the PRC complaint. The Postal Service complains

7

that after two years of expensive discovery (and vigorous discovery battles), it is ready to challenge

8

plaintiff’s constitutional claims, to test plaintiff’s evidentiary presentation, and to resolve the case at

9

either summary judgment or trial. Defendants argue, in other words, that they also have a right to
their respective “day in court” to defend against plaintiff’s (apparently widely publicized)

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

allegations.

12

Moreover, even plaintiffs agree that their regulatory claims filed before the PRC are separate

13

and distinct from those constitutional claims that make up this litigation. Indeed, in the summer of

14

2009, defendants moved to dismiss the instant complaint and argued that, even if plaintiffs had

15

stated viable constitutional claims, it would make sense to defer resolution until plaintiffs first

16

sought relief through the PRC’s administrative channels. Plaintiffs successfully defended against

17

that motion by disavowing that theirs were regulatory claims, or claims that depended on resolution

18

of hypothetical regulatory claims. As a matter of fairness, it is difficult to ignore plaintiffs’

19

complete reversal of position. Two years ago, they insisted that deferral or delay of this litigation

20

pending a regulatory proceeding in the PRC would add little but in turn prejudice the individuals

21

plaintiffs represent by delaying relief. They now essentially argue the opposite: that a regulatory

22

proceeding will at least “help” matters in this litigation enough to warrant interruption roughly three

23

months prior to their scheduled trial date. More importantly, the plaintiffs do not actually argue that

24

resolution of the regulatory complaint will “simplify” the substantive issues in question. Plaintiffs

25

contend the matter would be simplified not because the constitutional claims depend or are informed

26

by the regulatory ones, but because plaintiffs promise they will be so “satisfied” with a favorable

27

PRC decision that they will voluntarily drop their constitutional claims. Given the major reversal
NO. C 09-1964 RS
ORDER

28

2

1

behind plaintiffs' stay request, plaintiffs should not be surprised if the Court receives this new

2

promise with some skepticism.

competing considerations with which this Court is tasked do not warrant the stay requested. That

5

said, a compromise of sorts regarding scheduling is perhaps in order. This Court granted, over

6

defendants’ opposition, plaintiffs a slight extension of discovery deadlines. As the Postal Service

7

points out, the new deadlines operate such that defendant’s deadline to file a motion for summary

8

judgment falls at a point in time prior to the date on which they will receive certain documents and

9

discovery. Accordingly, the slight extension of the dispositive motion hearing deadline defendants

10

request is warranted. As the parties are still in the midst of varied discovery battles, and have filed

11
For the Northern District of California

Finally, discovery is nearly complete and a trial date was long ago set. In other words, the

4

United States District Court

3

myriad discovery motions, it makes sense to push the dispositive motion deadline out slightly

12

further than requested to allow the referral judge an opportunity to address the parties’ numerous

13

filings. All dispositive motions shall be heard no later than October 13, 2011. The trial date shall

14

be continued to January 9, 2012. The continuance of the trial date is convenient for the Court’s

15

schedule and the slight delay does indeed allow plaintiffs to pursue their regulatory complaint.

16

Should plaintiffs prevail there, they of course remain free to voluntarily to dismiss this matter.

17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21
22

Dated: 6/24/11
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
NO. C 09-1964 RS
ORDER

28

3