1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARIAN ANTHONY, Case No.: 3:25-cv-01551-JLS-AHG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL 13 v.

14 MICHAEL HUBBARD, [ECF No. 11]

15 Defendant. 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff filed his complaint on June 17, 2025. ECF No. 1. On July 11, 2025, 20 Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 4. The motion is not yet fully briefed and is 21 currently pending before the district judge. See ECF Nos. 5, 6; see also ECF No. 4 at 1 22 (hearing set for August 28, 2025). On July 17, 2025, Plaintiff filed a petition for writ of 23 mandamus to compel disclosure of judicial administrative records. ECF No. 9. The Court 24 thereafter issued a minute order, declining to schedule a Case Management Conference 25 (“CMC”) or Early Neutral Evaluation Conference (“ENE”) in the case at that time since 26 no answer had been filed, and informing Plaintiff that “it will schedule a CMC and ENE 27 once the pending motion to dismiss has been resolved. During the CMC, the Court will set 28 deadlines for discovery in this case.” ECF No. 10. 1 On August 13, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel discovery. ECF 2 No. 11; see also ECF No. 12. Here, Plaintiff requests a court order compelling Defendant 3 to produce a copy of the internal circulation log and metadata regarding the timestamp at 4 issue, as evidence of the judicial review process. ECF No. 11 at 1–2. Since Defendant has 5 not answered the complaint, no ENE has been scheduled and no Rule 26(f) conference has 6 occurred. See CivLR 16.1(c) (ENEs occur within 45-days of the defendant’s answer and 7 the CMC, preceded by the Rule 26(f) conference, is held within 30-days of the ENE). “A 8 party is generally not permitted to obtain discovery without a court order before the parties 9 have conferred pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f).” Satmodo v. Whenever 10 Commc’ns, No. 17cv192-AJB-NLS,

, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2017) 11 (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 26(d)(1)). However, the Court has discretion to permit early or 12 expedited discovery upon a showing of good cause. See Fluke Elecs. Corp. v. CorDEX 13 Instruments, No. C12-2082-JLR,

, at *10 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 13, 2013) 14 (“Courts within the Ninth Circuit generally use a ‘good cause’ standard to determine 15 whether to permit discovery prior to a Rule 26(f) conference”); Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo 16 Electron Am., Inc.,

, 275–76 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (applying “the conventional 17 standard of good cause in evaluating Plaintiff's request for expedited discovery”); see cf. 18 In re Morning Song Bird Food Litig., No. 12cv1592-JAH-RBB,

, at *2 19 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2013) (“The burden is on Plaintiffs to show a need for pre-Rule 26(f) 20 discovery.”), aff’d & objections overruled by,

(S.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2013). 21 Good cause exists “where the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the 22 administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party.” Semitool, 208 23 F.R.D. at 276. “The court must perform this evaluation in light of ‘the entirety of the record 24 ... and the reasonableness of the request in light of all the surrounding circumstances.’” 25 Facebook v. Various, Inc., No. C-11-01805-SBA DMR,

, at *2 (N.D. 26 Cal. June 17, 2011) (quoting Semitool,

). 27 / / 28 / / 1 Plaintiffs request for discovery was made, at a minimum, four months! in advance 2 ||of the typical discovery process. See Human Rights Watch v. Drug Enf’t Admin., No. 3 || 15cv2573-PSG-JPRx,

, at *2 (C.D. Cal. July 10, 2015) (noting that 4 ||“[t]his case is in its early stages, having just been filed three months ago,” which weighed 5 against granting expedited discovery). Further, a motion to dismiss is presently pending. 6 || ECF No. 4; see In re Morning Song Bird Food Litig.,

, at *3 (denying 7 || plaintiff's request for discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference, and explaining that “the 8 || operative complaint is challenged by motion practice, delaying discovery until the claims 9 ||and defenses in the case are better defined reduces expenses, minimizes the burden of 10 |;}unnecessary discovery, and conserves judicial resources”); see also Celebrity Chefs Tour 11 Macy’s, No. 13cv2714-JLS-KSC,

, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2014) 12 || (collecting cases that illustrate that “[t]his ruling is in keeping with numerous other courts, 13 which have denied parties’ requests to expedite discovery on the same grounds when 14 || potentially dispositive motions are pending”). 15 The Court does not find good cause to permit early discovery in this case. As such, 16 || Plaintiff's motion to compel is DENIED without prejudice. ECF No. 11; see Boylan v. 17 || Morgan, No. 20cv1967-WQH-AHG,

, at *5—*10 (S.D. Cal. 18 || Dec. 30, 2020) (denying motion for discovery prior to Rule 26(f) conference when motions 19 |/to dismiss were pending and the request for discovery was filed four months in advance of 20 ||/typical discovery process). Once the motion to dismiss has been resolved, the Court will 21 schedule the CMC and set the Rule 26(f) conference deadline, which will open discovery. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: August 14, 2025 MioeH. Aydolan-_ 24} United States Magistrate Judge 25 26 See ECF No. 4 at 1 (hearing on the motion to dismiss is set for August 28, 2025); FED. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A) (stating that if the court denies the motion to dismiss, the defendant 27 answer the complaint within 14 days); CivLR 16.1(c) (setting ENEs within 45 days 28 after the defendant answers the complaint and Case Management Conferences within 30- days of the ENE).