Lou v. MA Laboratories, Inc et al

Filing 40

ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES ON MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND REFERRING ALL DISCOVERY DISPUTES TO A RANDOMLY-ASSIGNEDMAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge Alsup granting 34 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 31 MOTION to Dismiss Defendants' Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Compel Arbitration and Stay the Action Pending Arbitration; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof ; denying 38 Discovery Letter Brief; denying 39 Motion for Leave to File Responses due by 3/28/2013. Replies due by 4/4/2013. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/11/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 MICHELLE LOU, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 No. C 12-05409 WHA Plaintiff, v. MA LABORATORIES, INC., et al., Defendants. / ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES ON MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND REFERRING ALL DISCOVERY DISPUTES TO A RANDOMLY-ASSIGNED MAGISTRATE JUDGE Following review of defendants’ equivocating responses to the request for confirmation 17 whether defendants will participate in discovery, additional guidance is in order. At the 18 January 17 case management conference, defendants requested a stay of discovery in favor of 19 their then-unfiled motion to compel arbitration. The request was denied. Despite this denial, 20 defendants still believe that it is appropriate to resist plaintiff’s attempts to seek class-related 21 discovery from defendants. They are mistaken. Full discovery will move forward, particularly 22 in light of the June 6 deadline for plaintiff’s motion for class certification. Defendants are 23 advised to cooperate in this discovery. Because defendants have already filed their motion 24 compel, doing so will not be construed as an implicit waiver of arbitration under Van Ness 25 Townhouses v. Mar Industries Corp., 862 F.2d 754, 759 (9th Cit. 1988). The renewed request of 26 certain defendants for a stay is discovery (Dkt. No. 38) is DENIED. 27 28 Plaintiff’s request for an extension of deadlines related to the motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED to the following extent in order to provide additional time for discovery 1 related to the arbitration motion: plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to compel arbitration will 2 be due by MARCH 28 AT NOON; any reply thereto will be due by APRIL 4 AT NOON; the motion 3 will be heard on APRIL 18 AT 8:00 A.M. This extension should not be interpreted as a de facto 4 stay of other discovery during the same time period. Plaintiff’s request for leave to file a reply in 5 support of the extension motion is DENIED. 6 This matter is REFERRED to a randomly-assigned magistrate judge for resolution of all 7 future discovery disputes. The parties must be mindful of the case management deadlines and 8 bring all discovery disputes to the magistrate judge’s attention in a timely manner. The 9 magistrate judge is requested to assist the Court in adhering to the case management schedule by issuing timely rulings on the parties’ discovery disputes. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 Dated: February 11, 2013. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?