Cave Consulting Group, Inc. v. OptumInsight, Inc.,

Filing 172

Order by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero denying 167 Motion to Stay. (jcslc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/7/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CAVE CONSULTING GROUP, INC., Case No. 15-cv-03424-JCS Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY 9 10 Re: Dkt. No. 167 OPTUMINSIGHT, INC., Defendant. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 This Court previously granted a motion by Defendant OptumInsight, Inc. to stay pending 13 interlocutory appeal the Court’s previous order granting in part a motion to compel production of 14 documents. The Court stayed OptumInsight’s document production obligations until twenty-one 15 days following the disposition of OptumInsight’s interlocutory appeal. The United States Court of 16 Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied OptumInsight’s petition for interlocutory appeal on 17 February 24, 2017. Although the Federal Circuit’s order was without prejudice to OptumInsight 18 filing a subsequent petition for mandamus, it disposed of the interlocutory appeal within the 19 meaning of this Court’s previous order granting a stay. 20 OptumInsight now moves once again to stay its discovery obligations pending the outcome 21 of a petition for mandamus. See dkt. 167. The Court finds that OptumInsight has not met its 22 burden to obtain a further stay. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433−34 (2009). In the 23 discretion of the Court, that motion is DENIED. 24 25 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 7, 2017 ______________________________________ JOSEPH C. SPERO Chief Magistrate Judge

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?