Harrington v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 MICHAEL J HARRINGTON, et al., Case No. 23-cv-06296-HSG 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 9 y MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY Re: Dkt. No. 39 10 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, Defendant. a 12 13 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to stay discovery during the pendency of || Defendant’s prior-filed motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 39. The Court finds this matter appropriate || for disposition without oral argument and the matter is deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b).

16 Defendant argues that a stay of discovery under Rule 26(c) is appropriate here, and the = 17 || Court agrees: it finds that because (1) Defendant’s motion to dismiss is “potentially dispositive of || the entire case” on Jurisdictional grounds and (2) “the pending dispositive motion can be decided || absent discovery,” Defendant has established good cause for a stay of discovery. In re Nexus 6p || Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 17-CV-02185-BLF, 2017 WL 3581188, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2017).

21 || And since the Court has not yet established a case schedule for this matter, a temporary pause on || discovery does not stand to unduly prejudice Plaintiffs.

23 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion, Dkt. No. 39, and orders discovery || STAYED pending resolution of Defendant’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 28.

25 IT IS SO ORDERED.

26 || Dated: 5/29/2024 27 Alapurl 5 > HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 8 United States District Judge