Anderson et al v. SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment
Filing
160
ORDER DENYING 137 Motion for Protective Order Staying Discovery Pending Resolution of Motion for Summary Judgment and Rescheduling Hearing on 136 Motion for Summary Judgment. Motion Hearing set for 2/2/2018 09:00 AM in Courtroom 5, 2nd Floor, Oakland before Judge Jeffrey S. White. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on December 18, 2017. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/18/2017)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
Plaintiffs,
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
Case No. 15-cv-02172-JSW
MARC ANDERSON, et al.,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER STAYING
DISCOVERY AND RESCHEDULING
HEARING ON MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
v.
SEAWORLD PARKS AND
ENTERTAINMENT, INC.,
Re: Dkt. Nos. 136, 137
Defendant.
13
14
Now before the Court for consideration is the motion for a protective order staying
15
discovery filed by SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment, Inc. (“SeaWorld”). The Court has
16
considered the parties’ papers, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case. For the reasons
17
set forth below, the Court HEREBY DENIES SeaWorld’s motion.
18
19
BACKGROUND
On April 13, 2015, Marc Anderson (“Anderson”) and Ellexa Conway (“Conway”) filed a
20
complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California for the City and County of San
21
Francisco. (Dkt. No. 1-1, Complaint.) On May 11, 2015, Anderson and Conway filed a First
22
Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (Dkt. No. 9-1, FAC.) On May 14, 2015, SeaWorld removed to
23
this Court. (Dkt. No. 1, Notice of Removal.)
24
On May 29, 2015, Anderson and Conway moved to remand. (Dkt. No. 15.) On
25
September 24, 2015, the Court denied the motion to remand. On January 12, 2016, the Court
26
granted, in part, and denied, in part, their motion for reconsideration. (Dkt. Nos. 46, 65.)
27
In the interim, on September 18, 2015, SeaWorld had filed a motion to dismiss the FAC.
28
(Dkt. No. 43.) On April 7, 2016, Anderson and Conway filed a motion for leave to file a second
1
amended complaint to add two new plaintiffs, Kelly Nelson (“Nelson”) and Juliette Morizur
2
(“Morizur”), and to supplement the factual allegations in the FAC. (Dkt. No. 69.) Because
3
SeaWorld’s motion to dismiss was fully briefed, the Court considered SeaWorld’s motion in the
4
first instance. The Court considered the Plaintiffs’ proposed second amended complaint to
5
determine whether leave to amend would be futile.
On August 1, 2016, the Court granted, in part, and denied, in part, SeaWorld’s motion to
6
7
dismiss and denied the motion for leave to amend as moot. Although the Court found that the
8
proposed second amended complaint did not adequately plead certain claims, it gave leave to
9
include Morizur and Nelson as plaintiffs and gave Plaintiffs a further opportunity to amend their
claims. See Anderson v. SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment, No. 15-cv-2172-JSW, 2016 WL
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
4076097, at *8-11 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2016).
12
On August 22, 2016, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Class Action Complaint
13
(“SAC”). (Dkt. No. 81.) On September 8, 2016, SeaWorld moved to dismiss the SAC. (Dkt. No.
14
82.) On November 7, 2016, the Court granted, in part, and denied, in part, that motion. (Dkt. No.
15
90.)
16
On November 22, 2016, Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Class Action Complaint
17
(“TAC”). (Dkt. No. 94.) On December 13, 2016, SeaWorld moved to dismiss portions of the
18
TAC. (Dkt. No. 99.) The Court denied SeaWorld’s motion on January 30, 2017. Thereafter, the
19
parties appeared for a case management conference, and the Court issued a scheduling order,
20
which has been amended on two occasions. (Dkt. Nos. 107, 123, 133.) The parties also have
21
engaged in discovery, which has not been without its disputes.
22
On October 30, 2017, SeaWorld filed this motion for a protective order. On the same day,
23
it filed a motion for summary judgment, in which it raises a variety of arguments as to why
24
Plaintiffs cannot prevail on their claims. On December 1, 2017, SeaWorld filed a motion for
25
sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, which addresses many of the same facts
26
that support its motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. Nos. 154, 156.)
27
28
In its motion for a protective order, SeaWorld asks the Court to stay discovery until the
Court resolves its motion for summary judgment.
2
ANALYSIS
1
2
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) provides that a court may “for good cause, issue an
order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or
4
expense” by, inter alia, forbidding the discovery or specifying terms, including time and place, for
5
disclosure or discovery. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(c)(1)(A)-(B). The Court has discretion to stay
6
discovery pending the resolution of dispositive motions, including motions to dismiss. See, e.g.,
7
Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Wood v. McEwen, 644 F.2d 797, 801
8
(9th Cir. 1981) (good cause to stay discovery may exist where a court is “convinced that the
9
plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief”). “A party seeking a stay of discovery carries
10
the heavy burden of making a ‘strong showing’ why discovery should be denied.” Gray v. First
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
3
Winthrop Corp., 133 F.R.D. 39, 40 (N.D. Cal. 1990) (quoting Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519
12
F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975)). “The moving party must show a particular and specific need for
13
the protective order, as opposed to making stereotyped or conclusory statements.” Id. (citations
14
omitted).
15
In determining whether to grant a protective order to stay discovery pending resolution of
16
dispositive motions, the Court considers the following two factors: (1) whether the pending
17
motion is potentially dispositive of the entire case, or at least dispositive on the issue at which
18
discovery is directed; and (2) whether the pending dispositive motion can be decided absent
19
additional discovery. The Pacific Lumber Co. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA,
20
220 F.R.D. 349, 352 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (internal citations omitted); see also In re Nexus 6p Prod.
21
Liab. Litig., No. 17-cv-2185-BLF, 2017 WL 3581188, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2017) (citing
22
cases). When the Court applies this test, it takes a “‘preliminary peek’ at the merits of the pending
23
dispositive motion to assess whether a stay is warranted.” In re Nexus6p Prod. Liab. Litig., 2017
24
WL 3581188, at *1 (quoting Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 602 (D. Nev. 2011)).
25
If the two above questions are answered affirmatively, the Court may issue a protective order.
26
Pacific Lumber, 220 F.R.D. at 352. “However, if either prong of this test is not established,
27
28
3
1
discovery proceeds.” Id.1
The Plaintiffs do not argue that they need discovery to oppose SeaWorld’s motion for
2
3
summary judgment. Indeed, that motion is fully briefed and was scheduled for a hearing on
4
December 8, 2017. The Court finds that SeaWorld has met its burden to show the second prong of
5
the Pacific Lumber test is satisfied.
SeaWorld moves for summary judgment on the basis that, inter alia, Plaintiffs lack
7
standing to pursue their claims. Plaintiffs do not dispute that a ruling in SeaWorld’s favor on that
8
issue would be would be dispositive. Cf. San Francisco Technology v. Kraco Enterprises, LLC,
9
No. 11-cv-00355-EJD, 2011 WL 2193397, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2011) (noting that if court
10
ruled in favor of defendant, motion would dispose of case); Smith v. Levine-Leichtman Capital
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
6
Partners, Inc., No. 10-cv-00010-JSW, 2011 WL 13153189, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2011)
12
(rejecting plaintiffs’ argument that a stay should be “ limited to matters where the complaint is
13
facially deficient, utterly frivolous or completely devoid of merit”). By this Order, the Court is not
14
providing an opinion the merits of the motion for summary judgment. However, having taken a
15
“preliminary peek” at the motion, the Court cannot say with confidence that SeaWorld will be able
16
to show there are no material facts in dispute or that resolution of the motion will not raise issues
17
about the Plaintiffs’ credibility. The Court concludes that SeaWorld has not met its burden to
18
show the first prong of the Pacific Lumber test is satisfied.
19
Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion for a protective order. Because the facts
20
underlying SeaWorld’s motion for summary judgment overlap with the facts supporting its motion
21
for sanctions, the Court concludes those motions should be considered together and HEREBY
22
RESCHEDULES the hearing on the motion for summary to February 2, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. If the
23
Court finds that either the motion for summary judgment or the motion for sanctions, or both, can
24
be resolved without oral argument, it will notify the parties in advance of the hearing date.
25
Finally, as the Court takes a closer look at the motion for summary judgment and the motion for
26
sanctions, the Court reserves the right to revisit this ruling and to issue an Order to Show Cause to
27
1
28
For ease of reference, the Court shall refer to this test as the Pacific Lumber test in the
remainder of this Order.
4
1
2
3
4
5
Pla
aintiffs why discovery sh
hould not be stayed.
IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
ated: Decemb 18, 2017
ber
7
Da
___
__________
___________
__________
________
JEF
FFREY S. W
WHITE
Un
nited States D
District Judg
ge
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
27
28
5
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?