Aloudi v. Intramedic Research Group, LLC

Filing 48

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING 38 MOTION FOR STAY OF DISCOVERY. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/15/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ALHARETH ALOUDI,

Case No. 15-cv-00882-HSG

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
STAY OF DISCOVERY

v.
9
10

INTRAMEDIC RESEARCH GROUP, LLC,

Re: Dkt. No. 38

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
Pending before the Court is Defendant Intramedic Research Group, LLC’s motion for stay

13
14

of discovery and discovery deadlines pending ruling of the Court on Defendant’s motion to

15

dismiss Plaintiff Alhareth Aloudi’s first amended complaint. Dkt. No. 38. The Court, in its

16

discretion, finds this matter suitable for resolution without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).
A party may seek a protective order that stays discovery pending resolution of a potentially

17
18

dispositive motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). See, e.g., Wenger v.

19

Monroe, 282 F.3d 1068, 1077 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirming district court’s grant of protective order

20

staying discovery pending resolution of motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

21

Procedure 12(b)(6)). A motion brought pursuant to Rule 26(c) “must include a certification that

22

the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an

23

effort to resolve the dispute without court action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1).

24

//

25

//

26

//

27

//

28

//

1

Defendant brings the pending motion under Rule 26(c).1 See Dkt. No. 38 at 3. Defendant

2

does not dispute that it failed to comply with the Rule’s meet and confer requirement. The Court

3

accordingly DENIES the motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

Dated: October 15, 2015
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1

27
28

Given Defendant’s explicit statement that the motion is brought under Rule 26(c), Defendant’s
argument that the motion is a motion to stay, rather than a motion for a protective order, is
irrelevant. See Dkt. No. 43 at 9. Whatever Defendant chooses to call it, the motion remains
subject to Rule 26(c)’s meet and confer requirement.
2