STODDART v. EXPRESS SERVICES, INC.

No. 2:12-cv-1054 KJM CKD.

MICHAEL STODDART, Plaintiff, v. EXPRESS SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, E.D. California.

May 5, 2015.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Michael H. Stoddart, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Lynn Connor , Cohelan Khoury & Singer, Kimberly Dawn Neilson , Cohelan Khoury & Singer, Marta Manus , GrahamHollis A.P.C., Michael D. Singer , Cohelan Khoury & Singer & Graham S.P. Hollis , GrahamHollis, APC.

Express Services, Inc., Doing business as Express Employment Professionals, Defendant, represented by Janet Lynn Grumer , Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Jason W. Kearnaghan , Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, Morgan Patricia Forsey , Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton, Richard J Simmons , Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Aaron N. Colby , Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Elizabeth Scott Wood , McAfee & Taft, APC & Jessica John Bowman , McAfee & Taft, APC.

Phillips & Associates, Inc., Doing business as Express Employment Professionals, Defendant, represented by Janet Lynn Grumer , Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Jason W. Kearnaghan , Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, Morgan Patricia Forsey , Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton, Richard J Simmons , Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Aaron N. Colby , Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.

Western Wine Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alison H Hong , Jackson Lewis P.C., Douglas George Johnston , Jackson Lewis P.C., Fraser Angus McAlpine , Jackson Lewis P.C. & Scott C Lacunza , Jackson Lewis P.C..


ORDER

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.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases