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
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?