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