Williams v. Camden Old Creek
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Allison H. Goddard (author)
Analysis
Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application for permission to begin discovery, which the Court had set for briefing. The Court denied the application as moot because the underlying complaint had been dismissed, noting that pre-complaint discovery was unwarranted.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for Permission to Begin Discovery is denied as moot.“Therefore, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiffs’ ex parte application without prejudice.” | agree with court The court correctly identifies that the dismissal of the complaint renders the request for discovery in that specific action moot. The citation to In Re Flash Memory Antitrust Litig. supports the proposition that pre-complaint discovery is generally disfavored or unwarranted when the underlying action is not yet properly before the court or has been terminated. The denial without prejudice allows for renewal if a new complaint is filed, which is a standard procedural remedy. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the mootness doctrine to the discovery request following the dismissal of the complaint. The citation to the Northern District of California case provides relevant persuasive authority for the proposition that pre-complaint discovery is disfavored in the absence of a pending, viable complaint. The instruction to follow Chambers Rules for future joint motions is appropriate.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHALIECIA WILLIAMS, et al., Case No.: 3:19-cv-691-AJB-AHG 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 13 v. PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION 14 CAMDEN OLD CREEK, et al., TO BEGIN DISCOVERY 15 Defendants.
16 [ECF No. 17] 17 19 20 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for Permission to Begin 21 Conducting Discovery. ECF No. 17. Since Plaintiffs’ counsel represented to the Court that 22 this ex parte application would be opposed, the Court set a briefing schedule. ECF No. 18. 23 Afterward, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ amended 24 complaint. ECF Nos. 10, 19. Because the complaint has been dismissed, the request to conduct discovery is now moot, and the Court finds that pre-complaint discovery is 25 unwarranted in this case. See, e.g., In Re Flash Memory Antitrust Litig., No. C07-0086- 26 SBA, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95869, at *18–*21, *24–*29 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2008) 27 (denying plaintiffs’ request for discovery when independent actions had been terminated amended consolidated complaints had not yet been filed, explaining that pre- complaint discovery was unwarranted). Therefore, the Court DENIES AS MOOT || Plaintiffs’ ex parte application without prejudice. Plaintiffs may renew their request’ to discovery after Defendants respond to Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint, || should one be filed. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 6, 2020 r 1 _ApWioenH. Xiouolane Honorable Allison H. Goddard United States Magistrate Judge Should Plaintiffs renew their request, the parties are instructed to follow the Court’s ||Chambers Rules (available at || https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Judges/goddard/docs/Goddard% 20Civil% 20Pretrial% 20P ||rocedures.pdf). See Chmb.R. at 2 (requiring that such requests “be made to the Court by joint motion. ... If the other party or parties oppose the request, they should set forth their position in the joint motion. Ex parte applications are disfavored...”’).