Whitewater West Industries, LTD. v. Pacific Surf Designs, Inc. et al

Filing 171

ORDER Denying Motion to Stay as Moot. [ECF No. 155 ]. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major on 8/31/2018. (anh)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY AS MOOT Plaintiff, 8 9 Case No.: 17CV1118-BEN(BLM) WHITEWATER WEST INDUSTRIES, LTD., v. [ECF No. 155] PACIFIC SURF DESIGNS, INC. AND FLOW SERVICES, INC., Defendants. ____________________________________ AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS 15 16 Currently before the Court is Defendants’ August 8, 2018 Ex Parte Application for an 17 Order Staying the Case Pending Resolution of Defendants’ Motion for Terminating Sanctions. 18 [see ECF No. 155] and Plaintiff’s August 15, 2018 opposition to the motion [see ECF No. 159]. 19 Defendants “request[] that this Court stay the remaining case deadlines pending 20 resolution of [their] Motion for Sanctions [see ECF No. 154] to save the parties and the Court 21 the needless effort of conducting remaining expert discovery and additional motions, including 22 dispositive motions.” Id. at 2. Defendants argue that a stay will “will promote economy of time 23 and effort for [the Court], for counsel, and for litigants” and that the remaining pretrial deadlines 24 may “be unnecessary in view of [Defendants’] motion.” Id. at 3. Defendants also argue that 25 there is no undue prejudice to Plaintiff as any prejudice is of Plaintiff’s own doing as it has not 26 been forthcoming in its discovery obligations and has continuously delayed the resolution of this 27 matter. Id. Finally, Defendants argue that the two Ninth Circuit factors for staying discovery 28 pending a dispositive motion are met as Defendants’ pending motion is “potentially dispositive 1 17CV1118-BEN(BLM) 1 of the entire case” and “there is no additional discovery that is needed to decide the pending 2 motion.” Id. 3 On August 15, 2018, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion. ECF No. 159. 4 Plaintiff contends that (1) Defendants’ motion is meritless, (2) Defendants failed to provide 5 notice that they intended to seek ex parte relief, and (3) Defendants fail to explain how they 6 would be harmed by requesting a stay through a properly noticed motion. Id. at 2, 4. Plaintiff 7 also contends that Defendants failed to diligently pursue their subpoena to Knobbe and that 8 Defendants “cannot justify a stay because they cannot demonstrate that their pending motion 9 presents and immediate and clear possibility that it will be granted.” Id. at 2, 5. Plaintiff further 10 contends that a proper analysis of the factors for staying discovery demonstrate that a stay is 11 not appropriate. Id. at 6. Specifically, Plaintiff notes that the likelihood of Defendants’ motion 12 for terminating sanctions being granted “is anything but an immediate and clear possibility.” Id. 13 at 7 (quoting GTE Wireless, Inc. v. Qualcomm, Inc., 192 F.R.D. 284, 286 (S.D. Cal. Mar 2, 2000). 14 Plaintiff contends that it would suffer undue hardship if the motion to stay was granted as the 15 case has been pending for nearly three years and that “a stay would cause the case to remain 16 at a standstill for weeks, maybe even months, and ultimately push expert discovery into the 17 holiday season when experts would be less available.” Id. at 8. Finally, Plaintiff contends that 18 Defendants will not suffer any hardship if the stay is denied and that the stay “would not advance 19 the orderly course of justice.” Id. 20 On August 31, 2018, the Court issued an Order Denying Defendants’ Motion for 21 Terminating Sanctions. See ECF No. 170. In light of the Court’s order, Defendants’ Ex Parte 22 Application for an Order Staying the Case Pending Resolution of Defendants’ Motion for 23 Terminating Sanctions is DENIED AS MOOT. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 8/31/2018 26 27 28 2 17CV1118-BEN(BLM)

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?