Antonelli et al v. Finish Line, Inc et al

Filing 59

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY by Judge Paul S. Grewal denying 44 Motion to Stay (psglc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/1/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12
13
14
15
16

CRYSTAL ANTONELLI, ANNY CHI,
)
ALISHA ELAM, ANALYNN FORONDA AND )
KAREN LOPEZ,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
v.
)
)
THE FINISH LINE, INC., ET AL.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No.: 11-CV-03874-EJD (PSG)
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
(Re: Docket No. 44)

17
Defendant The Finish Line, Inc. (“TFL”) moves to stay discovery pending a decision by the
18
presiding judge on its motion to stay the proceedings pending appeal. Plaintiffs Crystal Antonelli,
19
Anny Chi, Alisha Elam, Analynn Foronda, and Karen Lopez (collectively “Plaintiffs”) oppose the
20
motion. On May 1, 2012, the parties appeared for hearing. Having reviewed the papers and
21
considered the arguments of counsel,
22
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that TFL’s motion to stay discovery is DENIED.
23
24

On February 16, 2012, the presiding judge denied TFL’s motion to compel arbitration 1 and
separately, issued a case management order. 2 According to the case management order, fact

25
26
27
28

1

See Docket No. 33.

2

See Docket No. 35.
1

Case No.: C 11-03874 EJD (PSG)
ORDER

1

discovery closes on September 29, 2012. 3 On March 7, 2012, TFL filed a notice of appeal to the

2

Ninth Circuit. 4 According to the Time Schedule Order issued by the Ninth Circuit, briefing by the

3

parties will not be completed until at least July 16, 2012. 5 On March 8, 2012, TFL moved to stay

4

the proceedings pending a decision on the appeal. 6 After TFL was not able to obtain a hearing

5

before the presiding judge until June 29, 2012, it elected not to move for a hearing on shortened

6

time and to proceed instead with the instant motion. 7

7

TFL contends that discovery should be stayed pending a decision by the presiding judge on

8

the motion to stay the proceedings because it will be substantially harmed or prejudiced if it is

9

forced to bear the burden and to incur the costs associated with proceeding with discovery

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

beforehand. TFL explains that arbitration and the streamlined procedures that govern discovery

11

there exist so that the parties can avoid litigation in court.

12

Plaintiffs respond that TFL’s effort to stay discovery is a “petty and unnecessarily

13

adversarial attempt to delay the fair and efficient administration of this matter.” They note that the

14

discovery served to date is narrowly tailored and relevant regardless of whether the case is

15

adjudicated here or in arbitration. It includes, or has included, only the following: (1) the deposition

16

of Defendant David Meyer (“Meyer”); (2) ten interrogatories; (3) seven document requests; (4)

17

seven requests for admission; and (5) a Rule 30(b)(6) notice. 8

18
19
20

3

See id.

21

4

See Docket No. 39.

22

5

See Docket No. 41.

23

6

See Docket No. 40.

24

7

25
26
27
28

Along with the motion to stay discovery, TFL also moved for shortened time in light of a
deposition of Defendant David Meyer scheduled to be held on March 21, 2012 and responses to
written discovery due on March 26, 2012. See Docket No. 45. The undersigned denied TFL’s
motion to shorten time on the grounds that TFL had not shown the substantial harm or prejudice
TFL would face if the discovery proceeded before the regularly-noticed hearing date. See Docket
No. 49.
8

Meyer was deposed on March 21, 2012.
2

Case No.: C 11-03874 EJD (PSG)
ORDER

1

The court is not persuaded that all discovery must cease, as TFL urges. As Plaintiffs

2

previously pointed out, under Britton v. Co-op Banking Group, 9 the Ninth Circuit held that the

3

district court retains jurisdiction pending an appeal of an order denying a motion to compel

4

arbitration. Aside from unspecified costs that TFL would incur in responding to the narrow set of

5

discovery described above, TFL has not shown substantial harm or prejudice. 10 It appears that

6

much of this discovery would occur even under the streamlined discovery procedures of

7

arbitration. Even if that were not the case, a stay of discovery by the undersigned would not be

8

appropriate for the following reason. The standard to be evaluated by the presiding judge is

9

whether TFL has presented a “substantial question” that warrants a complete stay pending appeal. 11

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Under the rule urged by TFL, a defendant could secure at least a temporary stay from the referral

11

judge by demonstrating a “substantial question” about the “substantial question” before the

12

presiding judge. Nothing in Britton or any other precedent from the Circuit suggests that a district

13

court undertake such an iterative redundancy.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

Dated:

5/1/2012

_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

9

26

10

27
28

916 F.2d 1405, 1412 (9th Cir. 1990).

At the hearing, TFL conceded that in light of the fact that Plaintiffs have not served any
additional discovery since the undersigned ruled on TFL’s motion to shorten time, the instant
motion may not be ripe.
11

See Britton, 916 F.2d at 1412.
3

Case No.: C 11-03874 EJD (PSG)
ORDER