Lopez v. Harley-Davidson, Inc.

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OKSANA LOPEZ, et al., 10 Case No. 24-cv-04320-RS Plaintiffs, v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 12 STAY OF PROCEEDINGS HARLEY-DAVIDSON, INC., Defendant.

16 Defendant Harley-Davidson, Inc. seeks a stay of all other proceedings in this action pending a ruling on its motion for terminating sanctions, which is based on the fact that plaintiffs’ counsel directed a third-party storage facility to dispose of the motorcycle decedent was riding in the incident giving rise to this action. Harley-Davidson has not met its burden to show that a stay is warranted. See generally, Mlejnecky v. Olympus Imaging Am., Inc., 2011 WL 489743, at *7-10 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2011). The stay motion is therefore denied.

22 The assigned magistrate judge appropriately denied a motion to compel, without prejudice, pending a determination as to whether a stay would issue. In light of this denial, the parties should proceed as directed by the magistrate judge. The magistrate judge retains full discretion to determine if and when the disputed discovery should go forward. Although plaintiffs have suggested the outstanding discovery could be relevant to some of the issues in the pending sanctions motion, plaintiffs shall file their opposition to the sanctions motion as currently motion, an order to that effect will issue, but the parties should presume the sanctions motion will || be decided on the current record.

4 || ITISSO ORDERED.

6 || Dated: September 30, 2025 RICHARD SEEBORG 8 Chief United States District Judge a 12

Z 18 CASE No. 24-cv-04320-RS