WSTCO Quality Feed and Supply, LLC v. Ada et al

Filing 86

Order granting 72 Motion to Stay Discovery ; granting 73 Motion to Stay Discovery; finding as moot 84 Motion to Calendar Motion to Stay Discovery; taking under advisement 65 Motion to Dismiss; taking under advisement 75 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona on 11/9/2018. (fad, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE TERRITORY OF GUAM

1
2
3

WSTCO QUALITY FEED AND SUPPLY,
LLC,

Case No.: 17-cv-00127

4

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO
STAY DISCOVERY AND TAKING
MOTIONS TO DISMISS UNDER
ADVISEMENT

5

vs.
6

ANTHONY J. ADA, et al.,
7

Defendants.
8
9

Before the Court are motions to stay discovery filed by Defendants Jay Rojas (Aug. 30, 2018,

10

ECF No. 72) and GALC (Aug. 30, 2018, ECF No. 73). Plaintiff WSTCO Quality Feed and Supply

11

filed an opposition (Sept. 20, 2018, ECF No. 78), and defendants filed replies (GALC Reply, Sept. 24,

12
13

2018, ECF No. 79; Rojas Reply, ECF No. 83, Oct. 9, 2018). The Court has carefully considered these
papers and finds good cause to stay discovery pending the determination of defendants’ motions to

14

dismiss (GALC, July 31, 2018, ECF No. 65; Rojas, Sept. 4, 2018, ECF No. 75), which are based in
15

part on the defense of qualified immunity. See Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 597–98 (1998)
16
17

(trial court “must exercise its discretion so that officials are not subjected to unnecessary and

18

burdensome discovery or trial proceedings”); Grenning v. Klemme, 34 F. Supp. 3d 1144, 1153 (E.D.

19

Wash. 2014) (“district courts generally stay discovery until the issue of qualified immunity is

20

resolved”).

21

At the same time, the Court is mindful of the need to press forward in this matter and Plaintiff’s

22

legitimate interest in conducting discovery as soon as possible. The motions to dismiss are fully

23
24

1

briefed, and neither party has filed a request for oral argument pursuant to CVLR 7(i). Therefore, the
1
2
3
4
5
6

Court takes the motions to dismiss under advisement and will endeavor to issue its ruling as soon as
possible.
The motions to stay discovery (ECF No. 72 and 73) are GRANTED. Furthermore, GALC’s
Motion to Calendar Motion to Stay Discovery (Nov. 6, 2018, ECF No. 84) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of November, 2018.

7
8
9
10

___________________________________
RAMONA V. MANGLONA
Chief Judge, District Court for the Northern
Mariana Islands, sitting by designation

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

2