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)

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