STODDART v. EXPRESS SERVICES, INC., 2:12-cv-1054 KJM CKD. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20150506686
Visitors: 7
Filed: May 05, 2015
Latest Update: May 05, 2015
Summary: ORDER CAROLYN K. DELANEY , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff's motion regarding the scope of discovery was referred to the undersigned by minute order entered on May 4, 2015. The motion was originally set for hearing on May 8, 2015 before the District Judge. This action is a putative class action and has been pending in this court since April 20, 2012. After filing the motion regarding the scope of discovery, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. Defendant thereafter moved to dismiss. The m
Summary: ORDER CAROLYN K. DELANEY , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff's motion regarding the scope of discovery was referred to the undersigned by minute order entered on May 4, 2015. The motion was originally set for hearing on May 8, 2015 before the District Judge. This action is a putative class action and has been pending in this court since April 20, 2012. After filing the motion regarding the scope of discovery, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. Defendant thereafter moved to dismiss. The mo..
More
ORDER
CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff's motion regarding the scope of discovery was referred to the undersigned by minute order entered on May 4, 2015. The motion was originally set for hearing on May 8, 2015 before the District Judge. This action is a putative class action and has been pending in this court since April 20, 2012. After filing the motion regarding the scope of discovery, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. Defendant thereafter moved to dismiss. The motion to dismiss is currently set for hearing on June 5, 2015. Resolution of the motion to dismiss will determine the allowable contours of discovery. Given the expansive breadth of discovery sought by plaintiff and the intrusive nature of the information sought which impacts the privacy rights of nonparties to this action, the court has determined that the motion is premature.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion regarding the scope of discovery (ECF No. 73) is denied without prejudice to its renewal after resolution of the pending motion to dismiss.
2. Before the filing of a renewed motion regarding the scope of discovery, the parties are directed to meet and confer. The motion shall be briefed in accordance with the format set forth in Local Rule 251.
Source: Leagle
