Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Altitude Capital Partners, L.P. et al

Filing 42

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO STAY UNRELATED DISCOVERY AND REFERRING MATTER TO A RANDOMLY ASSIGNED MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 12/1/09. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., Plaintiff, v. ALTITUDE CAPITAL PARTNERS, L.P. and SECURITY RESEARCH HOLDINGS LLC, Defendants. / ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO STAY UNRELATED DISCOVERY AND REFERRING MATTER TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE No. C 09-03449 JSW United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On November 30, 2009, this Court received a letter brief from the parties regarding a dispute over the appropriate scope of discovery pending a motion to dismiss filed by the Defendants. When a defendant raises jurisdictional objections, the Court may stay discovery proceedings and limit discovery to matters relevant to the Court's jurisdiction. See orchid Biosciences, Inc. v. St. Louis University, 198 F.R.D. 670, 675 (S.D. Cal., 2001) (citing 8 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure 2040, p. 521-22 (2d ed. 1994)). The Court here finds that because a dispositive motion is pending which challenges jurisdiction, allowing discovery which extends beyond jurisdictional issues at this juncture would place a burden on Defendants which exceeds the benefit derived by Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants' request to limit discovery only to issues relating to the pending motion to dismiss. However, to the extent the parties continue to disagree about the specific scope of the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 pending discovery requests and whether any particular request falls within the ambit of the pending motion to dismiss, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72-1, the Court HEREBY REFERS these potential discovery disputes and any further discovery disputes which may arise in this matter to a randomly-assigned magistrate judge for resolution. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 1, 2009 JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 cc: Wings Hom 2

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?