UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL MCNAMEE, et al., Case No. 21-cv-01688-AGT

Plaintiffs, ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION v. FOR COURT INTERPRETATION OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS INDIGO SAN FRANCISCO, LLC, Re: Dkt. No. 18 Defendant.

Last April, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the Court stayed this case pending the out- come of nine separate arbitrations, each between the defendant and one of the nine plaintiffs. See Dkt. 14 at 5. The arbitration proceedings are ongoing, but the plaintiffs have returned to the Court to seek a judicial determination of the discovery rules that should apply. The plaintiffs maintain that discovery should be governed by the JAMS discovery rules, while the defendant insists that there’s no basis for the Court to impose those rules and that disputes about the applicable discovery rules should be resolved in arbitration. The Court agrees with the defendant. “The arbitrator, and not the court, decides questions of procedure and discovery.” SWAB Fin., LLC v. E*Trade Sec., LLC,

(2007). The parties’ arbitration agreements reflect this principal. They state that “the parties will have the right to conduct adequate civil discovery, bring dispositive motions, and present witnesses and evidence as needed to present their cases and defenses, according to all rules of pleading, all rules of evidence available under the California Code of Civil Procedure, or proce- dural rules mutually agreed upon by the parties, and any disputes in this regard shall be resolved by the Arbitrator.” E.g., Dkt. 22-1 at 6 (emphasis added). A dispute over which rules apply during discovery, in other words, is within the scope of the arbitrator’s authority to resolve. The plaintiffs’ motion for a court order that would direct the parties to adhere to particular discovery rules is thus denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 4, 2022 | ) Alex G. Tse United States Magistrate Judge