Onuoha et al v. Facebook, Inc.

Filing 35

ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 4/7/2017. (ejdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/7/2017)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

SAN JOSE DIVISION

4
VICTOR ONUOHA, et al.,

5

Case No. 5:16-cv-06440-EJD

Plaintiffs,
6

ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 33

7
FACEBOOK, INC.,

8

Defendant.
9
10
Defendant Facebook, Inc. moves to stay discovery1 pending resolution of its motion to

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

dismiss. Facebook’s motion will be GRANTED.
Plaintiffs allege that Facebook engages in discrimination because it “labels each user with

13
14

a race or ethnicity” and “encourages advertisers to apply Facebook’s race and ethnicity labels in

15

targeting advertisements for employment, housing, and credit opportunities” on Facebook’s ad

16

network. Dkt. No. 33 at 1. Facebook has moved to dismiss all of Plaintiffs’ claims because, among

17

other reasons, it believes it is immune from liability under § 230 of the Communications Decency

18

Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1). Dkt. No. 34. § 230 “establish[es] broad ‘federal immunity to any cause

19

of action that would make service providers liable for information originating with a third-party

20

user of the service.’ ” Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC, 488 F.3d 1102, 1118 (9th Cir. 2007). § 230

21

“must be interpreted to protect websites not merely from ultimate liability, but from having to

22

fight costly and protracted legal battles.” Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v.

23

Roommates.Com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157, 1175 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457

24

U.S. 800, 818 (1982) (holding that, in the qualified immunity context, “discovery should not be

25
26
27
28

1

The parties submitted a joint letter on the issue of whether discovery should be stayed. Dkt. No.
33. The Court construes this letter as a motion to stay discovery.
1
Case No.: 5:16-cv-06440-EJD
ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY

1
2

allowed” until the “threshold immunity question is resolved”).
The Ninth Circuit “has not announced a clear standard” for evaluating a motion to stay
discovery while a dispositive motion is pending. Mlejnecky v. Olympus Imaging Am., Inc., No.

4

2:10-cv-02630 JAM KJN, 2011 WL 489743, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2011). However, many

5

federal courts in California have applied a two-part test: (1) will the motion dispose of the entire

6

case (or at least the issue at which discovery is aimed)? and (2) can the motion be decided without

7

further discovery? Id.; Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA. v. Res. Dev. Servs., Inc., No. C

8

10-01324 JF (PVT), 2010 WL 3746290, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2010); Hall v. Tilton, No. C 07-

9

3233 RMW (PR), 2010 WL 539679, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2010); Seven Springs Ltd. P’ship v.

10

Fox Capital Mgmt. Corp., Civ. No. S-07-0142 LKK GGH, 2007 WL 1146607, at *1–2 (E.D. Cal.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

3

Apr. 18, 2007). In addition, district courts may exercise “wide discretion in controlling discovery.”

12

Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988).

13

Here, both elements favor a stay. First, if Facebook prevails on its § 230 argument, all of

14

Plaintiffs’ claims will be dismissed. Second, Facebook’s motion to dismiss can be decided without

15

further discovery. Plaintiffs argue that they need additional discovery to “confirm” or “show with

16

greater specificity” that Facebook creates race and ethnicity labels for its users. Dkt. No. 33 at 3.

17

But Plaintiffs have explained these claims in thirty paragraphs of detailed factual allegations in

18

their first amended complaint (Dkt. No. 33, ¶¶ 29–59), which the Court must accept as true when

19

deciding Facebook’s motion to dismiss (Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). Plaintiffs

20

have not adequately explained where more facts are needed.

21
22

Accordingly, discovery is STAYED until the Court issues an order on Facebook’s motion
to dismiss (Dkt. No. 34).

23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 7, 2017
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

26
27
28

2
Case No.: 5:16-cv-06440-EJD
ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY