Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-03135/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-03135-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Property

---

1

Case No.: 13-CV-03135-LHK

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JOSEPH CUVIELLO,

Plaintiff,

v.

FELD ENTERTAINMENT INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 13-CV-03135-LHK

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

STAY

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion for Stay (ECF No. 104), Defendants’ opposition

thereto (ECF No. 113), Plaintiff’s reply (ECF No. 122), the transcript of the December 2, 2014

hearing before Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal (ECF No. 90), and the parties’ submissions in 

advance of that hearing (ECF Nos. 69, 76, 78), the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to 

make “a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits” of his mandamus petition in the 

Ninth Circuit. Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987); see also Stanley v. Chappell, 764 

F.3d 990, 996 (9th Cir. 2014) (explaining that “the writ of mandamus is an ‘extraordinary’ remedy 

limited to ‘extraordinary’ causes” (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted)). Nor has 

Plaintiff made a sufficient showing of irreparable harm. See Hilton, 481 U.S. at 776; see also 

Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2013 WL 5693759, at *7 (N.D. Cal. 

Case 5:13-cv-03135-LHK Document 123 Filed 02/04/15 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No.: 13-CV-03135-LHK

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Oct. 15, 2013) (rejecting Samsung’s claim that it would suffer “irreparable harm” absent a stay 

pending mandamus petition because “Samsung will have the opportunity to assert privilege as to 

specific documents and testimony, and Samsung may seek a stay from the Federal Circuit”).

Further, a stay of discovery at this late date—with dispositive motions due in just over two 

weeks and trial starting in May—would prejudice Defendants. See Hilton, 481 U.S. at 776; see 

also Solis v. Washington, No. C08-5479BHS, 2010 WL 1708831, at *5 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 27, 

2010) (denying motion for stay pending mandamus petition to the Ninth Circuit where trial was 

imminent and “Defendant would be forced to endure a lengthy wait for an answer to an issue that 

has little chance of success”). Lastly, the public interest does not favor granting a stay. See

Hilton, 481 U.S. at 776; see also Apple, 2013 WL 5693759, at *7 (finding the public interest did 

not favor a stay because courts must ensure that violations of discovery orders, “which are 

essential to all litigation, are dealt with “swiftly” and “appropriately”).

Accordingly, the Court in its discretion DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Stay pending 

resolution of his mandamus petition in the Ninth Circuit. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the 

Court hereby VACATES the hearing on this motion set for April 30, 2015, at 1:30 p.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 4, 2015

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-03135-LHK Document 123 Filed 02/04/15 Page 2 of 2