Hoopes Vineyard LLC et al v. County of Napa

Filing 52

Order by Judge Charles R. Breyer denying 42 Motion for Protective Order.(crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/6/2025)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

HOOPES VINEYARD LLC, et al.,

9

Plaintiffs,

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

v.
COUNTY OF NAPA,

Case No. 24-cv-06256-CRB
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR A
PROTECTIVE ORDER TO STAY
DISCOVERY

Defendant.

13

Defendant Napa County seeks a protective order to stay discovery pending the

14

resolution of its soon-to-be-filed motion attacking Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint.

15

Mot. (dkt. 42). The court finds this matter suitable for resolution without a hearing

16

pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7-1(b) and DENIES Napa County’s motion.

17

The filing (or anticipated filing) of a motion to dismiss does not automatically stay

18

discovery. Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 600 (D. Nev. 2011). Rather,

19

stays of discovery are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1), which

20

provides that a court may issue a protective order limiting discovery “for good cause … to

21

protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or

22

expense.” The “party seeking a stay of discovery carries the heavy burden of making a

23

‘strong showing’ why discovery should be denied.” Gray v. First Winthrop Corp., 133

24

F.R.D. 39, 40 (N.D. Cal. 1990) (citing Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429

25

(9th Cir. 1975). This requires that party to “show a particular and specific need for the

26

protective order, as opposed to making stereotyped or conclusory statements.” Id.

27
28

Where a party seeks a stay pending the resolution of a motion, two factors must be
present for a court to issue a stay. First, the “pending motion must be potentially

1

dispositive of the entire case, or at least dispositive on the issue at which discovery is

2

directed.” Smith v. Levine Leichtman Cap. Partners, Inc., No. C 10-00010 JSW, 2011 WL

3

13153189, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2011). Second, the court must be able to decide the

4

pending motion without additional discovery. Id. The presence of these two factors

5

permits, but does not require, the court to stay discovery until the pending motion is

6

resolved. See id. (“If the two above questions are answered affirmatively, the court may

7

issue a protective order.” (emphasis in original)).

United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

The parties spend significant time debating the likely merits of Napa County’s as-

9

yet unfiled motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint. But Plaintiffs’

10

allegations and Napa County’s potential defenses are complex and not suited for

11

abbreviated briefing in a motion to stay. See id. at *2 (“a stay of the type requested by

12

defendants, where a party asserts that dismissal is likely, … would circumvent the

13

procedures for resolution of [a motion to dismiss]”). Certainly the Court is unable to say

14

that it is “convinced that the plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief.” See

15

Werger v. Monroe, 282 F.3d 1068, 1077 (9th Cir. 2022) (emphasis added) (citation

16

omitted). Moreover, Napa County fails to identify a particular or specific need for a

17

protective order, asserting only that a stay will promote efficiency for the Court and the

18

parties and conserve the parties’ resources. Mot. at 9–10. Such blanket concerns, which

19

are true in the mine run of litigation, do not establish good cause for a protective order.

20

See Smith, 2011 WL 13153189, at *2 (“The expense of discovery alone does not amount

21

to good cause to stay discovery based on Defendants’ argument that they are likely to

22

succeed on the pending motions and could therefore avoid unnecessary expenses.”).

23

The Court therefore finds that a stay of discovery would not be proper at this

24

juncture. Napa County’s motion is DENIED.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

Dated: January 6, 2025
CHARLES R. BREYER
United States District Judge

27
28
2