640 South Main Street Partners, LLC et al v. City of Los Angeles
Filing
76
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS EX PARTE APPLICATION for Protective Order for To Stay Discovery Pending Plaintiff's filing of a Viable Complaint and Hearing on City's Motion to Dismiss 68 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson (lc)
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant. __________________________ 640 SOUTH MAIN STREET PARTNERS,LLC and HSC PROPERTIES, , PlaintiffS, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CV 08-03611 DDP (JTLx) ORDER DENYING EX PARTE APPLICATION [Application filed on November 11, 2008] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
This case was first removed from state court on June 3, 2008. On July 15, 2008, this Court ordered Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. Plaintiffs did not comply with the Court's order and On
instead filed a document styled "More Definite Statement."
October 15, 2008, the Court again ordered Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint within 30 days. Additionally, on October 16,
2008, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer and produce a Rule 26(f) scheduling report. The parties were unable to comply with the Court's order. While they did meet, they did not file a joint scheduling report. Instead, each side filed its own scheduling report. (See Dkt. Nos.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
60, 62.)
Plaintiffs then noticed a series of depositions, some of
which were to take place before it had filed an amended complaint. Defendant objected and filed an ex parte application on November 5, 2008 seeking a protective order before Magistrate Judge Jennifer Lum;1 and a second ex parte application before this Court on November 11 seeking a stay of discovery until a complaint had been filed and a hearing was held on a motion to dismiss. Defendant
argues that Plaintiffs' discovery requests are overly burdensome for two reasons. First, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs have no
existing complaint and that it cannot properly frame objections or know its defenses. Defendant next argues that it plans to raise
jurisdictional issues on its motion to dismiss, which would dispense with some or all of Plaintiffs' claims and therefore reduce the discovery requests. On November 14, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint and, accordingly, this rationale for a protective order or stay has now passed. Nevertheless, the Court finds that
Plaintiffs were entitled to begin discovery pursuant to Rule 16 and 26. A district court may limit discovery for "good cause," and may stay discovery when it is "convinced that the plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief." Wenger v. Monroe, 282 F.3d
1068, 1077 (9th Cir. 2002)(citing Wood v. McEwan, 644, F.2d 797, 801-02 (9th Cir. 1981)). The Court is not convinced at this early
stage that Plaintiffs will be unable to state a claim for relief,
Judge Lum denied Defendant's request in an order dated November 10, 2008 and found that Plaintiffs were entitled to begin discovery, absent an order from this Court. 2
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
and Defendant has not otherwise demonstrated that it will be prejudiced by Plaintiffs' discovery requests. The Court DENIES Defendant's ex parte applications.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 20, 2008 _________________________ DEAN D. PREGERSON United States District Judge
3
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
