Watson v. Financial Center First Credit Union

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Ernest Watson, No. CV-24-00469-PHX-KML 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Financial Center First Credit Union, 13 Defendant.

15 Having reviewed the parties’ joint Rule 26(f) report (Doc. 26), the Court concludes it is unnecessary to hold a Rule 16 Case Management Conference and will stay discovery subject to the resolution of Financial Center First Credit Union’s motion to dismiss.

18 It is not clear whether Watson’s complaint or proposed amended complaint state any claims for relief. (Docs. 1-1, 23.) Without knowing which claims, if any, will proceed following resolution of Financial Center First Credit Union’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 5), the Court cannot determine the appropriate scope of discovery. In these circumstances, a brief stay of discovery is appropriate. A “district court has wide discretion in controlling discovery.” Jeff D. v. Otter, 643 F.3d 278, 289 (9th Cir. 2011). A stay of discovery pending resolution of a motion to dismiss “furthers the goals of efficiency for the courts and litigants.” Lazar v. Charles Schwab & Co. Inc., 2014 WL 12551210, at *1 (D. Ariz. Sept.

26 19, 2014) (quoting Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988)). Neither party may send discovery requests at this time. If appropriate, the court will set a discovery schedule after resolving the motion to dismiss and motion to amend.

1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS ORDERED discovery is STAYED pending resolution of the motion to || dismiss (Doc. 5).

4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the scheduling conference set for September 9, || 2024, VACATED.

6 Dated this 4th day of September, 2024.

8 Vy / Vo AY. | G. / 9 LAA ALALLA ee Le A __ _ Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 10 United States District Judge _2-