Zoom Imaging Solutions, Inc. v. Roe, 2:19-cv-01544-WBS-KJN. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20191223979
Visitors: 7
Filed: Dec. 19, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 19, 2019
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . On December 19, 2019, the court held an informal telephonic conference to resolve a discovery dispute between the parties. All parties, through counsel, were present. For the reasons stated below the court denies plaintiff's request to compel certain discovery. Following the court dismissing plaintiff's complaint in part, leaving only Edward Roe as an active defendant (ECF No. 53), the court ordered a stay on discovery pending the resolution of
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . On December 19, 2019, the court held an informal telephonic conference to resolve a discovery dispute between the parties. All parties, through counsel, were present. For the reasons stated below the court denies plaintiff's request to compel certain discovery. Following the court dismissing plaintiff's complaint in part, leaving only Edward Roe as an active defendant (ECF No. 53), the court ordered a stay on discovery pending the resolution of a..
More
ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.
On December 19, 2019, the court held an informal telephonic conference to resolve a discovery dispute between the parties. All parties, through counsel, were present. For the reasons stated below the court denies plaintiff's request to compel certain discovery.
Following the court dismissing plaintiff's complaint in part, leaving only Edward Roe as an active defendant (ECF No. 53), the court ordered a stay on discovery pending the resolution of an amended complaint and anticipated second motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 57.) There was a limited exception to the stay, permitting discovery against defendant Roe for the remaining claims against him. (Id.) Plaintiff has filed its amended complaint and is now seeking discovery from the defendants, other than Roe, named therein. Defendants, for their part, filed their second motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 68.)
Plaintiff's request clearly conflicts with the court's prior order staying all discovery except for the two surviving claims "against defendant Roe." (Id. at 2.) Because the requests at issue are not addressed to defendant Roe, but rather to the additional defendants named in the amended complaint, the court DENIES plaintiff's request to compel any response. As addressed in the conference on this matter, plaintiff is welcome to send requests to Roe, as permitted in the stay order mentioned above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
