Meguerian v. Apple, Inc

Filing 63

Order by Hon. Edward J. Davila denying (56) Motion to Stay, vacating hearing, and continuing case management conference.Associated Cases: 5:11-cv-01758-EJD, 5:11-cv-01989-EJD, 5:11-cv-02394-EJD(ejdlc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/15/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12

IN RE APPLE IN-APP PURCHASE
LITIGATION

13

Case No. 5:11-CV-01758 EJD
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY
DISCOVERY; CONTINUING CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

14
___________________________________/
15
16
17

Presently before the court is a motion to stay discovery filed by Defendant Apple, Inc.

18

(“Defendant”) on November 14, 2011. See Docket Item No. 56. Defendant requests that the court

19

stay discovery until Defendant’s previous motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Class Action

20

Complaint is decided. On November 23, 2011 Plaintiffs submitted a written opposition to the

21

motion. See Docket Item No. 57. On December 5, 2011 Defendant submitted its reply in support of

22

the motion to stay discovery after the parties stipulated to extended time to file. See Docket Item

23

No. 60.

24

Having reviewed the parties’ submissions, the court finds this matter appropriate for decision

25

without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). Accordingly, the hearing scheduled for

26

February 17, 2012 is VACATED. For the reasons below, the court denies Defendant’s motion to

27

stay discovery.

28
1
Case No. 5:11-CV-01758 EJD
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY; CONTINUING CASE MANAGEM ENT CONFERENCE

1

Generally, the scope of discovery is expansive, subject to the court’s inherent power to

2

control the proceedings before it. See Fed. R. Civ. P 26(b). There are, however, limits to the scope

3

of discovery. Indeed, motions to stay discovery may be granted upon showing of good cause by the

4

moving party or where “justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment,

5

oppression, or undue burden or expense.” White v. E-Loan, Inc., 2006 WL 2850041 *2 (N.D. Cal.

6

Oct. 5, 2006) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(4); GTE Wireless, Inc. v. Qualcomm, Inc., 192 F.R.D.

7

284, 285-86. (S.D. Cal. 2000)).

8

Generally, such motions are disfavored because discovery stays may interfere with judicial

9

efficiency and cause unnecessary litigation in the future. Id. Therefore, before a stay can be issued,

10

the moving party must meet a “heavy burden of making a ‘strong showing’ why discovery should be

11

denied . . . [by showing] a particular or specific need for the stay, as opposed to making stereotyped

12

or conclusory statements.” Id. (quoting Skellerup v. City of Los Angeles, 163 F.R.D. 598, 600 (C.D.

13

Cal. 1995)). “Good cause” may be shown “by demonstrating harm or prejudice that will result from

14

the discovery.” Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004).

15

If, after examining the basis for good cause, “‘a court finds particularized harm will result

16

from disclosure of information to the public, then it balances the public and private interests to

17

decide whether a protective order is necessary.’” Rivera, 364 F.3d at 1063–64 (quoting Phillips ex

18

rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2002)).

19

Here, Defendant requests the court to stay discovery pending a ruling on a potentially

20

dispositive motion. In this context, the Ninth Circuit requires Defendant to make a “strong showing”

21

of why discovery should be stayed. See Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir.

22

1975). However, Defendant has not made a strong showing proving the necessity of staying

23

discovery. Defendant’s contentions that Plaintiffs have not alleged a cognizable claim and that

24

discovery would be costly do not prove the need for a stay.

25

Furthermore, as this court recently explained in a similar context, even if the court were to

26

grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss, it is not unreasonable to assume that it would grant leave to

27

amend pleadings. See San Francisco Tech. v. Kraco Enterprises, 2011 WL 2193397 *3 (N.D. Cal.

28
2
Case No. 5:11-CV-01758 EJD
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY; CONTINUING CASE MANAGEM ENT CONFERENCE

1

June 6, 2011) (unpublished). Thus, the discovery sought by Plaintiffs might “allow for a more

2

detailed complaint” and “assist in expediting” the case. Id. Therefore, as in San Francisco Tech., the

3

court finds that there is greater benefit to allowing discovery to proceed at this time as it would

4

promote the court’s interest, as well as that of the public, in judicial efficiency and timely resolution

5

of litigation.

6

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to stay discovery is DENIED.

7

Furthermore, this case is scheduled for a Case Management Conference on February 17,

8

2012. Based on the parties’ Joint Case Management Statement and proposed schedule (see Docket

9

Item No. 62), the court finds a Case Management Conference would be premature at this time.

10

Accordingly, the Case Management Conference is VACATED and continued until March 23,

11

2012. The parties shall file an updated Joint Case Management Statement on or before March 13,

12

2012.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated: February 15, 2012

15
16

EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Case No. 5:11-CV-01758 EJD
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY; CONTINUING CASE MANAGEM ENT CONFERENCE