This Court should stay discovery proceedings in this case. Plaintiffs’ oppositiondoes not call into question Magistrate Judge Wistrich’s conclusion in his October 25,2012 Order that a stay of discovery may be warranted “in light of the characteristicsand potentially dispositive nature of the pending motions.”
Dkt. No. 66.Plaintiffs concede that they “do
seek information relating to the pendingmotions to dismiss,”
Pls.’ Opp. to Defs.’ Mot. to Stay Discovery Proceedings(“Pls.’ Opposition”), Dkt. No. 81 at 7, and that resolution of the pending motions todismiss does not turn on any contested factual matter.
. at 4. Plaintiffs also donot dispute that resolution of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group’s motion to dismiss,either independently or in combination with Defendants’ partial motion to dismiss, hasthe potential to resolve the entire case.
. Under these circumstances, astay of discovery until such motions have been resolved furthers the interests of judicial economy and preservation of government resources.
Little v. City of Seattle
, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988) (stating that when dispositive motions arepending, a stay “furthers the goal of efficiency for the court and litigants”).Moreover, despite Plaintiffs’ contention that discovery
be necessary forresolution of their motions for class certification and for a preliminary injunction,
Pls.’ Opposition at 7, Judge Wistrich previously found that “in the circumstances
it seems unlikely
that [P]laintiffs actually need discovery prior to the November 20, 2012hearing.”
Dkt. No. 66 (emphasis added). Indeed, Plaintiffs themselves note intheir opposition that:If the Court agrees with defendants that whether plaintiffs havesuffered irreparable harm “is at this point a legal question,” and thatdefendants have “not challenge[d] any of Plaintiffs’ factual allegationsbut rather accepted them as true for purposes of their opposition[s]” toplaintiffs’ motions, Dkt. No. 68-1 at 7, then
discovery may not berequired before the Court rules on plaintiffs’ motions for class
On November 7, 2012, Defendants filed an
application to postpone this hearing by at leasttwo weeks until December 4, 2012, or until such date thereafter that this Court deems appropriate.
Dkt. No. 90.
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 92 Filed 11/08/12 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:2266