IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 7, 2013
SMART MODULAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC., PLAINTIFF,
NETLIST, INC., DEFENDANT.
On January 23, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion to compel defendant to produce responses to plaintiff's first and second sets of requests for production of documents. Dckt. No. 115. According to plaintiff, defendant has improperly refused to respond to the discovery requests because defendant has moved to stay this action and therefore contends that discovery should be stayed in the meantime. Id. Also on January 23, 2013, defendant filed a motion for a protective order, reiterating its position that discovery should be halted until the court can rule on its motion to stay. Dckt. No. 116. Both motions are noticed for hearing on February 13, 2013. Accordingly, on February 6, 2013, the parties filed a joint statement regarding the disputes. Dckt. No. 119.
Defendant's motion to stay this action is scheduled to be heard before the assigned district judge on February 21, 2013.*fn1 Dckt. Nos. 107, 113. Because it appears that the district judge's ruling on the motion to stay will likely resolve many of the issues set forth in the two pending discovery motions and because the hearing on the motion to stay is only eight days after the hearing on those discovery motions,*fn2 both of the pending discovery motions, Dckt. Nos. 115 and 116, are denied without prejudice and the February 13, 2013 hearing thereon is vacated. If the court's ruling on the motion to stay and the subsequent meet and confer process between the parties (as required by Local Rule 251(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1)) do not resolve the issues set forth in one or both of the discovery motions, those motions may be re-noticed in accordance with Local Rule 251.