Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01072/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01072-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 08cv1072 BTM (NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YVONNE DALTON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 08cv1072 BTM (NLS)

ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE

APPLICATION and STAYING

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

v.

LEE PUBLICATIONS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiffs have filed an ex parte motion to stay Defendant Lee Publications, Inc.’s

pending motion for partial summary judgment [Doc. 69]. Plaintiffs argue that the motion is

premature and a violation of the magistrate judge’s scheduling order.

The scheduling order does not mention and does not explicitly preclude Defendant’s

motion for summary judgment. Still, Plaintiffs’ counsel makes an adequate showing that they

have not had the opportunity to develop the record on the issues it presents. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 56(f)(1) (court may deny motion for summary judgment if “party opposing motion

shows by affidavit that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its

opposition”); Greer Decl. ¶¶ 7–12 (stating reasons why record not fully developed). To date,

the parties have only conducted discovery related to class certification. And although this

discovery may also relate to merits issues, the parties have not done any discovery on

several of the issues raised by Defendant’s motion.

Case 3:08-cv-01072-GPC-NLS Document 71 Filed 05/14/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 08cv1072 BTM (NLS)

The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiffs’ ex parte motion to stay [Doc. 69].

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment shall be continued to August 13, 2010 at 11:00

a.m. No personal appearances are necessary unless ordered by the Court.

Plaintiffs shall take all discovery necessary to respond to the motion for summary

judgment. Plaintiffs shall have priority in discovery at this stage and Defendant shall be

stayed from any discovery to avoid interference with Plaintiffs’ efforts. Any unreasonable

delay in discovery by Defendant will be grounds for denial of the motion for summary

judgment. Any issues of delay shall be forthwith brought to the attention of this Court (not

the Magistrate Judge) by filing a request for a status conference. The Court will not entertain

any subsequent motions for summary judgment on the grounds raised in the present motion.

Plaintiffs’ opposition brief and Defendant’s reply shall be filed in accordance with the local

rules and the new August 13, 2010 hearing date.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 14, 2010

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01072-GPC-NLS Document 71 Filed 05/14/10 Page 2 of 2