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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?