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)

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)