ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND FOR SANCTIONS

[Re: Docket Nos. 33, 40]

HOWARD R. LLOYD, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Fareed Sepehry-Fard filed this quiet title action against Defendants in December 2013. It was immediately assigned to the undersigned and a Case Management Conference was scheduled for April 15, 2014. Defendants Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. and ReconTrust Company, N.A. promptly moved to dismiss and set a hearing in February. See Dkt. No. 5. However, all existing hearings and deadlines were vacated when Plaintiff declined to proceed before a magistrate judge and the case was reassigned to a district judge. Defendants Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and The Bank of New York Mellon then moved to dismiss and set a hearing for June 5, 2014, before the now presiding district judge; the first filed motion to dismiss was continued to the same date. No Case Management Conference is currently scheduled, and the parties have not yet held a Rule 26(f) conference. Nevertheless, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Motion to Compel Discovery and Request for Sanctions in early February. See Dkt. No. 33. Two weeks later he filed a substantively identical Motion to Compel Discovery and Request for Sanctions, and set a hearing for March 25, 2014, before the undersigned. See Dkt. No. 40. Defendants oppose the motions. See Dkt. Nos. 41, 42, 43. The matters are deemed suitable for determination without oral argument. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). Upon consideration of the moving and responding papers, the Court denies Plaintiff's motions.

The deadline for parties to hold a Rule 26(f) conference is generally 21 days before the Case Management Conference. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(1). A party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), unless authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, by stipulation, or by court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). Courts within the Ninth Circuit generally use a "good cause" standard to determine whether to permit such early discovery. See, e.g., Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 11-CV-01846 LHK, 2011 WL 1938154, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 18, 2011); Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron America, Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D. Cal. 2002). "Good cause may be found where the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party." Semitool, 208 F.R.D. at 276.

Plaintiff asserts that Defendants' attorneys refuse to hold a Rule 26(f) conference. They also refuse to give him a sworn affidavit admitting they "represent[] the holder in due course and the creditor to Plaintiff and whether or not [the attorneys] are debt collectors." Furthermore, they failed to provide evidence of chain of title and to answer "simple questions." Defendants assert that a Rule 26(f) conference is not required in the absence of a scheduled Case Management Conference and would be unreasonable in view of the pending motions to dismiss. Moreover, even if discovery were appropriate, Plaintiff's specific requests are not.

To say nothing of the propriety of Plaintiff's requests, the Court agrees with Defendants that ordering discovery at this time would be premature. Plaintiff points out that Defendants have not substantively responded to his discovery requests, but he has not demonstrate good cause for why they should. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motions are denied. Discovery shall not commence until the parties' hold their Rule 26(f) conference, which is not necessary at this time. Furthermore, in the event discovery disputes arise, the parties shall comply with the undersigned's Standing Order re: Civil Discovery Disputes.

IT IS SO ORDERED.