Williams v. Camden Old Creek, 3:19-cv-691-AJB-AHG. (2020)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20200309742
Visitors: 15
Filed: Mar. 06, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 06, 2020
Summary: ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO BEGIN DISCOVERY [ECF No. 17] ALLISON H. GODDARD , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for Permission to Begin Conducting Discovery. ECF No. 17. Since Plaintiffs' counsel represented to the Court that this ex parte application would be opposed, the Court set a briefing schedule. ECF No. 18. Afterward, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' amended complaint.
Summary: ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO BEGIN DISCOVERY [ECF No. 17] ALLISON H. GODDARD , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for Permission to Begin Conducting Discovery. ECF No. 17. Since Plaintiffs' counsel represented to the Court that this ex parte application would be opposed, the Court set a briefing schedule. ECF No. 18. Afterward, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' amended complaint. E..
More
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO BEGIN DISCOVERY
[ECF No. 17]
ALLISON H. GODDARD, Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for Permission to Begin Conducting Discovery. ECF No. 17. Since Plaintiffs' counsel represented to the Court that this ex parte application would be opposed, the Court set a briefing schedule. ECF No. 18. Afterward, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' amended 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 unwarranted in this case. See, e.g., In Re Flash Memory Antitrust Litig., No. C07-0086-SBA, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95869, at *18-*21, *24-*29 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2008) (denying plaintiffs' request for discovery when independent actions had been terminated and 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 request1 to conduct discovery after Defendants respond to Plaintiffs' second amended complaint, should one be filed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. 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 . . .").
Source: Leagle
