Gupta v. Wipro Limited et al

Filing 47

ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part 45 Plaintiff's Administrative Motion for Extension of Time and Administrative Motion for Leave to Conduct Limited Discovery and Deposition. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 12/16/2016. (ejdlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/16/2016)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

SAN JOSE DIVISION

4
5

ARVIND GUPTA,

Case No. 5:16-cv-05283-EJD

Plaintiff,
6

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION

v.
7
8

WIPRO LIMITED, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 45

Defendants.
9
10

On December 9, 2016, Plaintiff Arvind Gupta (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed the

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

instant “Administrative Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response in Opposition to

12

Defendants’ Motions for Sanctions/Pre-Filing Injunction and Administrative Motion for Leave to

13

Conduct Limited Discovery and Deposition” (Dkt. No. 45). Defendants Wipro, Ltd. and Azim H.

14

Premji (collectively, “Defendants”) oppose the motion as to the request to conduct discovery, but

15

not as to the extension of time. Based on a review of the action, the court orders as follows:

16

1.

Plaintiff’s unopposed request for a two month extension of time to file a response

17

to Defendants’ “Motion for Sanctions / Motion for Pre-Filing Injunction” is hereby GRANTED.

18

Plaintiff shall submit his Opposition to Defendants’ motions, if any, on or before February 17,

19

2017. Defendants shall file any Reply on or before March 3, 2016. The court declines to set a

20

schedule for any additional unfiled motions at this time.

21

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Conduct Limited Discovery and Deposition is

22

DENIED. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 “a party may not seek discovery from

23

any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f),” unless otherwise

24

authorized by the Rules, stipulation of the parties, or court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d). A court

25

may grant a request for early discovery prior to a Rule 26(f) conference where the requesting party

26

demonstrates good cause. See Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electorn Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276

27

(N.D.Cal. 2002). “Good cause may be found where the need for expedited discovery, in

28

1
Case No.: 5:16-cv-05283-EJD
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S ADMIN MOTION

1
2

consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party.” Id.
Here, as to the discovery request, Plaintiff contends that limited early discovery of his
employment records is necessary in order for him “to respond to Wipro and Premji’s ‘motion to

4

dismiss’, and ‘motion for sanctions / motion for pre filing injunction’” and would be “useful in

5

support of his claims.” Pl. Admin. Mot. at 3. Similarly, as to his request to conduct a deposition,

6

Plaintiff argues that Monica Rodriguez possess certain employment information that “is material

7

to Wipro and Premji’s allegations in their motions and any response to be filed by Plaintiff.” Id. at

8

3-4. However, the disposition of a motion to dismiss or a motion for sanctions is not based on

9

evidence obtained by way of discovery or deposition at this stage of proceedings. Rather, a

10

motion to dismiss tests the sufficiency of the complaint as pled under Federal Rule of Civil

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

3

Procedure 12(b)(6). Indeed, the court generally does not consider any material beyond the

12

pleadings for a Rule 12(b)(6) analysis. Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d

13

1542, 1555 n. 19 (9th Cir. 1990); Americopters, LLC v. FAA, 441 F.3d 726, 732 n.4 (9th Cir.

14

2006). Exceptions to this rule include material submitted as part of the complaint or relied upon in

15

the complaint, and material subject to judicial notice. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668,

16

688-69 (9th Cir.2001). And as to the motion for sanctions, nothing in the limited discovery sought

17

by Plaintiff here would be responsive to such a motion.

18

Plaintiff advances no other argument in support of his request. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails

19

to demonstrate good cause for conducting early discovery in exception to the requirements of Rule

20

26. See Chukwudebe v. Lu, No. C-13-5466 EMC, 2014 WL 46650, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 2014)

21

(denying the plaintiff’s request for leave to conduct discovery on the grounds that doing would not

22

be useful to plaintiff in opposing the Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss).

23
24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 16, 2016
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

27
28

2
Case No.: 5:16-cv-05283-EJD
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S ADMIN MOTION