Rynn v. Jennings

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

9 Richard Rynn, et al., No. CV-24-00594-TUC-JGZ 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER v. Craig Jennings, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel the Setting of a Rule 26 Conference. (Doc. 117.) Defendants filed four responses in opposition to the Motion, (see Docs. 135, 138, 140, 142), and Plaintiffs replied, (Doc. 153). Plaintiffs have served several discovery requests on Defendants. (See Docs. 89, 93, 99, 101.) No defendant has filed an answer in this case, and 11 motions to dismiss under Rule 12 remain pending. (See Docs.

20 15, 25, 63, 68, 81, 88, 90, 92, 96, 108, 112.) For the following reasons, the Court will deny Plaintiffs’ Motion.

22 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f)(1) provides that “[e]xcept in a proceeding exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B) or when the court orders otherwise, the parties must confer as soon as practicable—and in any event at least 21 days before a scheduling conference is held or a scheduling order is due under Rule 16(b).”

26 Generally, the court must issue a scheduling order “as soon as practicable, but unless the judge finds good cause for delay, the judge must issue it within the earlier of 90 days after any defendant has been served with the complaint or 60 days after any defendant has || appeared.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(2) (emphasis added). “District courts have broad 2|| discretion to manage discovery and to control the course of litigation under [Rule 16].”

3|| Hunt v. Cnty. of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012).

4 The Court finds good cause to delay issuing a scheduling order until after it rules on the Defendants’ motions to dismiss. “Where, as here, the operative complaint is challenged || by motion practice, ‘delaying discovery until the claims and defenses in the case are better 7\|| defined reduces expenses, minimizes the burden of unnecessary discovery, and conserves || judicial resources.’” Zavala v. Kruse-Western, Inc., No. 119CV00239DADSKO, 2019 WL 3219254, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 17, 2019) (quoting In re Morning Song Bird Food Litig., No. 12CV1592-JAH(RBB), 2013 WL 12143947, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2013)). Plaintiffs |} may not seek discovery before the Court sets a Rule 26 conference. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1).

13 Accordingly, 14 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel the Setting of Rule 26 || Conference (Doc. 117) is denied. Defendants are not required to respond to Plaintiffs’ || pending discovery requests.

17 Dated this 4th day of February, 2025.

Lernnf DLE 20 sennifer G. Z | ps Chiet United States District Judge _2-