Williams v. Camden Old Creek

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SHALIECIA WILLIAMS, et al., Case No.: 3:19-cv-691-AJB-AHG 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING AS MOOT v. PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION CAMDEN OLD CREEK, et al., TO BEGIN DISCOVERY 15 Defendants.

[ECF No. 17]

20 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for Permission to Begin Conducting Discovery. ECF No. 17. Since Plaintiffs’ counsel represented to the Court that this ex parte application would be opposed, the Court set a briefing schedule. ECF No. 18.

23 Afterward, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ amended complaint. ECF Nos. 10, 19. Because the complaint has been dismissed, the request to conduct discovery is now moot, and the Court finds that pre-complaint discovery is unwarranted in this case. See, e.g., In Re Flash Memory Antitrust Litig., No. C07-0086- SBA, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95869, at *18–*21, *24–*29 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2008) (denying plaintiffs’ request for discovery when independent actions had been terminated amended consolidated complaints had not yet been filed, explaining that pre- complaint discovery was unwarranted). Therefore, the Court DENIES AS MOOT || Plaintiffs’ ex parte application without prejudice. Plaintiffs may renew their request’ to discovery after Defendants respond to Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint, || should one be filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2020 r 1 _ApWioenH. Xiouolane Honorable Allison H. Goddard United States Magistrate Judge

Should Plaintiffs renew their request, the parties are instructed to follow the Court’s ||Chambers Rules (available at || https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Judges/goddard/docs/Goddard% 20Civil% 20Pretrial% 20P ||rocedures.pdf). See Chmb.R. at 2 (requiring that such requests “be made to the Court by joint motion. ... If the other party or parties oppose the request, they should set forth their position in the joint motion. Ex parte applications are disfavored...”’).