Client Solutions Architects, LLC v. United States of America

Opinion

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CLIENT SOLUTIONS ARCHITECTS, LLC, et Case No.: 19cv123-MMA(MSB) al., 12 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S Plaintiffs, 13 MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY AND v. VACATING REMAINING DATES PENDING 14 RESOLUTION OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 15 FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT Defendant. [ECF NO. 27] 16 17 18 On January 17, 2020, Defendant United States of America filed a “Motion to Stay 19 Proceedings Pending Resolution of United States’ Motion for Summary Judgment.” (ECF 20 No. 27.) Defendant asks the Court to stay discovery and further proceedings in this case 21 pending the District Judge’s ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment. (Id. at 1.) In 22 support, Defendant states that the stay is warranted for the following reasons: (1) its 23 Motion for Summary Judgment is “potentially dispositive of the entire case”; 24 (2) Plaintiffs do not require any discovery to oppose the motion; (3) the Motion for 25 Summary Judgment is “premised upon undisputed facts and will be decided solely as a 26 matter of law”; and (4) staying discovery will avoid “costly and time-consuming expert 27 discovery, which would need to begin immediately pursuant to the Court’s Scheduling 2 (See Docket.) 3 District courts have “broad discretion to stay discovery in a case while a 4 dispositive motion is pending.” Orchid Biosciences, Inc. v. St. Louis Univ., 198 F.R.D. 670, 5 672 (S.D. Cal. 2001) (citing Data Disc, Inc. v. Sys. Tech. Assocs., Inc., 557 F.2d 1280 (9th 6 Cir. 1977)); see also Hachette Distrib., Inc. v. Hudson Cty. News Co., Inc., 136 F.R.D. 356 7 (E.D.N.Y.1991) (“[T]he federal district courts have discretion to impose a stay of 8 discovery pending the determination of dispositive motions[.]”). This discretion derives 9 from the district court’s “power to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 10 681, 706 (1997). “A case by case analysis is required, since the determination will 11 necessarily be fact specific and will depend upon the particular circumstances and 12 posture of the case at issue.” Orchid Biosciences, Inc., 198 F.R.D. at 672. 13 In this case, Plaintiffs Client Solutions Architects, LLC (“CSA”) and The Hartford 14 brought a subrogation claim against Defendant United States pursuant to the Federal 15 Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs brought the suit in place of 16 Michelle Gibson, a former CSA employee, alleging that Gibson contracted a mold 17 infection due to exposure to environmental conditions while working as a contractor 18 employee at the U.S. Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command. (See id.) On 19 August 1, 2019, the Court conducted an Early Neutral Evaluation Conference and Case 20 Management Conference, and issued a “Scheduling Order Regulating Discovery and 21 Other Pre-Trial Proceedings” (“Scheduling Order”). (See ECF Nos. 21 & 22.) On January 22 15, 2020, Defendant United States of America filed a “Motion for Summary Judgment.” 23 (ECF No. 25.) 24 As discussed above, Plaintiffs have not opposed Defendant’s motion to stay. 25 Further, the Court notes that Defendant moves for summary judgment arguing that 26 Plaintiffs’ suit is barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations under the FTCA. 27 (See id.) As such, it does not appear that Plaintiffs would require additional discovery to 1 || Judge’s ruling on the pending Motion for Summary Judgement may dispose of the entire 2 || action, at this stage of the litigation, remaining discovery concerning the merits of the 3 || case, including expert discovery, would be burdensome and costly. 4 Accordingly, in light of the facts and procedural posture of this case, the Court 5 || finds good cause to stay discovery pending the District Judge’s ruling on the Motion for 6 ||Summary Judgment and GRANTS Defendant’s unopposed motion to stay discovery [ECF 7 ||No. 27]. Having consulted with the chambers of District Judge Anello, the Court 8 || VACATES all remaining dates in the Scheduling Order. (See ECF No. 22.) If the case is 9 || not dismissed, the parties are ORDERED to contact the chambers of Judge Berg within 10 || three (3) business days of the District Judge’s ruling on the pending Motion for 11 ||Summary Judgment [ECF No. 25] to reset dates. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 || Dated: January 22, 2020 _ = _ 2 SF — 1s Honorable Michael S. Berg United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28