IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 25, 2009
FELIX TORRES, JR., A FORMER MEMBER OF THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, PLAINTIFF,
SENATOR DON PERATA AND FABIAN NUNEZLL, INDIVIDUALLY AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES; THE CALIFORNIA STATE GOVERNOR ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGER, INDIVIDUALLY AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; AND DOES 1-10 INDIVIDUALLY, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.
Defendants Don Perata and Fabian Nunez request a stay of discovery pending this court's decision on their motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint, submitted for decision on September 15, 2008. This matter was set for hearing on March 18, 2009. However, the court has determined that oral argument is unnecessary and orders the matter submitted on the papers.
Defendants' counsel has filed a declaration and attached correspondence demonstrating plaintiff's efforts to obtain discovery prematurely. Defendants are exempt from adhering to discovery requirements and responding to discovery requests pending a decision on their challenge to the legal sufficiency of the amended complaint. See, e.g., Rutman Wine Co. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, 829 F.2d 729, 738 (9th Cir. 1987) (citation omitted) ("The purpose of Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is to enable defendants to challenge the legal sufficiency of complaints without subjecting themselves to discovery."). "[I]if the allegations of the complaint fail to establish the requisite elements of the cause of action, our requiring costly and time consuming discovery and trial work would represent an abdication of our judicial responsibility. It is sounder practice to determine whether there is any reasonable likelihood that plaintiffs can construct a claim before forcing the parties to undergo the expense of discovery." Id. (citations and internal quotations omitted).
Accordingly, defendants' motion to stay discovery, Dckt. No. 26, is hereby GRANTED, and the hearing scheduled on this matter for March 18, 2009, Dckt. No. 30, is VACATED. All discovery is stayed in this action pending a decision on defendants' motion to dismiss. Failure of any party to abide by this order may result in the imposition of monetary or other sanctions. See E. D. Cal. L. R. 11-110 (failure to comply with order of court may be grounds for sanctions).
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.