Proposed Order Denying Motion to Stay Discovery — Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation (Dkt. 44.1)

Summary

Document 44-1, filed 07/06/21 in Case No. 3:21-cv-1418-EMC in the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, is a proposed order denying Defendant Thomson Reuters Corporation's motion to stay discovery in the case brought by Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz. The proposed order would deny the motion on the merits because the Court is not convinced that Plaintiffs will be unable to state a claim for relief and because Thomson Reuters has failed to demonstrate good cause to stay discovery. It would direct that discovery on all claims is to proceed. The date line is blank and the signature block for Hon. Edward M. Chen, United States District Judge, carries no signature.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

          Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 44-1 Filed 07/06/21 Page 1 of 2



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9
                               UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
10
                                 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
                                        SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
12
     CAT BROOKS and RASHEED SHABAZZ,                      Case No. 3:21-cv-1418-EMC
13   individually and on behalf of all others similarly
     situated,
14                                                        [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING
15               Plaintiffs,                              MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
         v.
16
     THOMSON REUTERS CORPORATION,
17
              Defendant.
18

19
20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


                   [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
                                  Case No. 3:21-cv-1418-EMC
          Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 44-1 Filed 07/06/21 Page 2 of 2



1         Before the Court is Defendant Thomson Reuters Corporation’s motion to stay discovery.

2    Docket No. 37. Having considered the parties’ briefing and oral argument, the Court denies the

3    motion on the merits.

4         Thomson Reuters’ motion is denied because the Court is not “convinced” that

5    Plaintiffs will be unable to state a claim for relief. See Wood v. McEwen, 644 F.2d 797, 801 (9th

6    Cir. 1981). Also, the motion is denied because Thomson Reuters has failed to demonstrate good

7    cause to stay discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1). See Smith v. Levine

8    Leichtman Cap. Partners, Inc., 2011 WL 13153189, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2011).

9         Accordingly, discovery on all claims is to proceed.

10

11      IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

13
      Dated: _______________, 2021
14                                                              Hon. Edward M. Chen
                                                                United States District Judge
15

16

17

18

19
20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
                                              1
                  [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
                                 Case No. 3:21-cv-1418-EMC


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cand.374304.44.1.pdf

Size

54,851 bytes

SHA-256

bd7a40d3833203829b2b4920dd7bb21a373b32396da3b9d30af99a08c96903bb

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cand.374304.44.1.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)