Order by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu denying 83 Motion to Continue Initial Case Management… — Plaid Privacy (Dkt. 89)

Summary

An Order on Administrative Motion to Continue Case Management Conference, Doc. 89, dated September 25, 2020 in Cottle, et al. v. Plaid Inc., No. 20-cv-03056-DMR, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, ending with the name of United States Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu. It addresses Docket No. 83, in which Defendant Plaid, Inc. asked to continue the October 7, 2020 initial case management conference until after resolution of its pending motion to dismiss. The order states that the motion seeks to continue the parties' Rule 26(f) conference and thus stay discovery, and applies a two-part test for a discovery stay. It states that the motion to dismiss is not fully briefed and that Defendant has failed to meet its burden to justify a discovery stay, and denies the motion.

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

Record facts

Full text

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
JAMES COTTLE, et al., 
Plaintiffs, 
v. 
 
PLAID INC., 
Defendant. 
Case No.  20-cv-03056-DMR    
 
 
ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE 
MOTION TO CONTINUE CASE 
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 
Re: Dkt. No. 83 
 
Defendant Plaid, Inc. filed an administrative motion to continue the October 7, 2020 initial 
case management conference until after resolution of its pending motion to dismiss.  [Docket No. 
83.]  Although styled as a motion to continue the case management conference, Defendant’s 
motion actually seeks to continue the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference and thus stay discovery.  See 
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d) (“A party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have 
conferred as required by Rule 26(f) . . .”).  Defendant seeks to stay discovery on the ground that its 
motion to dismiss “demonstrates that Plaintiffs’ claims fail as a matter of law,” and that the court’s 
ruling in its favor “would dismiss or substantially curtail Plaintiffs’ claims and obviate the need 
for all, or some substantial part, of the discovery that might be taken in this case.”  Mot. 3.  
Plaintiffs oppose the motion, arguing that Defendant has failed to meet its “heavy burden” to 
justify a stay of discovery.  [Docket No. 88 at 2 (quoting Gray v. First Winthrop Corp., 133 
F.R.D. 39, 40 (N.D. Cal. 1990) (“A party seeking a stay of discovery carries the heavy burden of 
making a ‘strong showing’ why discovery should be denied.”)] 
Courts in this district have adopted a two-part test to determine whether to stay discovery 
pending resolution of a dispositive motion.  See Pacific Lumber Co. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of 
Pittsburgh, PA, 220 F.R.D. 349, 351 (N.D. Cal. 2003).  First, the pending motion must be 
potentially dispositive of the entire case, or at least dispositive on the issue at which discovery is 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 89   Filed 09/25/20   Page 1 of 2

 
2 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
directed.  Pacific Lumber Co., 220 F.R.D. at 351.  Second, the court must determine whether the 
pending dispositive motion can be decided absent discovery.  Id. at 352.  “ If the court answers 
these two questions in the affirmative, a protective order may issue.  However, if either prong of 
this test is not established, discovery proceeds.”  Id.  “In applying this two-factor test, the court 
deciding the motion to stay must take a ‘preliminary peek’ at the merits of the pending dispositive 
motion to assess whether a stay is warranted.”  Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 602 
(D. Nev. 2011). 
In this case, as Defendant’s motion to dismiss is not fully briefed, the court cannot assess 
the merits of the motion.  Moreover, even if some or all of Plaintiffs’ claims are deficient, the 
court will assess whether leave to amend should be granted, rendering Defendant’s motion non-
dispositive.  See, e.g., Singh v. Google, Inc., No. 16-CV-03734-BLF, 2016 WL 10807598, at *2 
(N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2016) (denying motion to stay discovery pending resolution of motion to 
dismiss); Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA. v. Res. Dev. Servs., Inc., No. C 10-01324 JF 
PVT, 2010 WL 3746290, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2010) (same).  Accordingly, Defendant has 
failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that a discovery stay is appropriate.  Its motion to 
continue the case management conference and stay discovery is therefore denied.   
 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
Dated: September 25, 2020 
 
______________________________________ 
 
Donna M. Ryu 
 
United States Magistrate Judge 
U
N
I
T
E
D
S
T
A
T
E
S
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
C
O
U
R
T
N
O
R
T
H
E
R
N
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
O
F
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
IT IS SO ORDERED
Judge Donna M. Ryu
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 89   Filed 09/25/20   Page 2 of 2

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cand.359040.89.0.pdf

Size

128,844 bytes

SHA-256

dc4e7e3521eb1ce7293bd31151f5f4c287dc3a4c282e64d4223bdd4b3ddfefbd

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cand.359040.89.0.pdf

Original

storage.courtlistener.com