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
CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.
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
User Comments