Bush v. Vaco Technology Services, LLC et al

Filing 38

ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 2/26/2018. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/26/2018)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

SAN JOSE DIVISION

8
9

CHRISTIANA BUSH,

10

Plaintiff,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

12
13

ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY

v.

11

Case No. 17-cv-05605-BLF

VACO TECHNOLOGY SERVICES, LLC,
et al.,
Defendants.

14
15
As stated on the record at the hearing on Google’s motion to dismiss the First Amended

16
17

Complaint held on February 22, 2018, discovery in this case is STAYED until Defendants are

18

ordered to answer the complaint, or such earlier time as ordered by the Court. At the hearing on

19

Google’s motion to dismiss, the Court indicated that it will grant the motion to dismiss and require

20

significant amendments from Plaintiff in order for this putative class action to proceed, including

21

narrowing the class allegations substantially. A written order on the Court’s determination of the

22

motion to dismiss is forthcoming, and will provide Plaintiff with a specified date for those

23

amendments. As currently pled, the scope of Plaintiff’s overbroad allegations begs discovery

24

abuse.

25

A district court has “wide discretion in controlling discovery,” Little v. City of Seattle, 863

26

F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988), and that discretion extends to staying discovery upon a showing of

27

“good cause,” see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(A). Good cause for staying discovery may exist when

28

the district court is “‘convinced that the plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief.’”

1

Wenger v. Monroe, 282 F.3d 1068, 1077 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Wood v. McEwen, 644 F.2d 797,

2

801 (9th Cir. 1981)); see also Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011)

3

(“Staying discovery when a court is convinced that the plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for

4

relief furthers the goal of efficiency for the court and the litigants.”).
Courts in this district have applied a two-pronged test to determine whether discovery

5
6

should be stayed pending resolution of a dispositive motion. See, e.g., Gibbs v. Carson, No. C-13-

7

0860, 2014 WL172187, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2014); Hamilton v. Rhoads, No. C 11-0227

8

RMW (PR), 2011 WL 5085504, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2011); Pac. Lumber Co. v. Nat’l Union

9

Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 220 F.R.D. 349, 351 (N.D. Cal. 2003). First, a pending motion
must be potentially dispositive of the entire case, or at least dispositive on the issue at which

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

discovery is directed. Pac. Lumber Co., 220 F.R.D. at 351 (citation omitted). Second, the court

12

must determine whether the pending motion can be decided absent discovery. Id. at 352 (citation

13

omitted). “If the Court answers these two questions in the affirmative, a protective order may

14

issue. However, if either prong of this test is not established, discovery proceeds.” Id. In

15

applying this two-factor test, the court must take a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the pending

16

dispositive motion to assess whether a stay is warranted. Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 602.
The Court has considered the merits of Google’s motion to dismiss in considering whether

17
18

a limited stay of discovery is warranted in this case. Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 602. As stated on

19

the record at the February 22, 2018 hearing, Google’s motion is dispositive and Plaintiff is

20

required to amend the pleadings in order to proceed.1 Second, discovery is unnecessary for

21

resolution of the motion to dismiss, or any subsequent motion to dismiss. Accordingly, under

22

Ninth Circuit law and the two-pronged approach applied by courts in this district, the Court finds

23

that good cause exists to stay discovery until Plaintiff’s and the class allegations are adequately

24

pled. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(A). This discovery stay furthers the goal of efficiency for the

25

court and the litigants, and is necessary to protect Google from oppressive discovery based on

26

overbroad allegations that will not proceed.

27
1

28

Again, a deadline for those amendments will be set forth in the Court’s Order on Google’s
motion to dismiss the FAC.
2

1

For the reasons set forth above and those stated on the record, discovery in this case is

2

STAYED until Defendants are ordered to answer the complaint. The parties shall file a stipulated

3

pre-trial schedule including discovery cut-off dates within fourteen (14) days of the lifting of the

4

discovery stay.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9
10

Dated: February 26, 2018
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3