Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-04303/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-04303-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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

LAWRENCE TORLIATT,

Plaintiff,

v.

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-04303-WHO 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY 

DISCOVERY; GRANTING MOTION 

TO SET CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 37, 38

Defendants PHH Mortgage Corporation and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC seek a stay of 

discovery until their pending motion to dismiss is resolved. See Dkt. No. 37. Plaintiff Lawrence 

Torliatt moves to set a Case Management Conference in this action given that one has not been set 

since stay was lifted following mediation. See Dkt. No. 38.1

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for stays of discovery simply because 

a motion to dismiss is pending. Novelposter v. Javitch Canfield Grp., No. 13-CV-05186-WHO, 

2014 WL 12618174, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 23, 2014) (finding no good cause for staying discovery 

pending resolution of a motion to dismiss); Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, 

124 F.R.D. 652, 653 (D. Nev. 1989) (“a pending Motion to Dismiss is not ordinarily a situation 

that in and of itself would warrant a stay of discovery”). Although “[a] district court has broad 

discretion to stay discovery pending the disposition of a dispositive motion,” courts have not 

looked favorably upon granting stays of discovery in these circumstances. Hall v. Tilton, No. 07-

cv-3233-RMW, 2010 WL 539679, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2010); see In re Valence Tech. Sec. 

1 The Case Management Conference set for November 5, 2019 was vacated when I granted 

parties’ joint motion to stay all proceedings pending mediation. Dkt. No. 29. Mediation was 

unsuccessful and the stay was lifted on February 6, 2020. Dkt. No. 33.

Case 3:19-cv-04303-WHO Document 39 Filed 03/13/20 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Litig., No. 94-cv-1542-SC, 1994 WL 758688, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 1994). The party seeking 

a stay must make a “strong showing” of “good cause” for its request. Blankenship v. Hearst 

Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975) (emphasis added); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). 

In support of their motion to stay, defendants simply reassert arguments from their motion 

to dismiss and contend that there is a strong likelihood that their motion will be dispositive. This 

is not sufficient good cause to stay discovery pending resolution of their motion to dismiss. 

Defendants’ motion to stay discovery is DENIED. Plaintiff’s motion to set a Case 

Management Conference is GRANTED. A Case Management Conference is set for April 15, 

2020, along with the hearing on defendants’ pending motion to dismiss. A joint case management 

statement should be filed by April 8, 2020 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 13, 2020 

William H. Orrick

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-04303-WHO Document 39 Filed 03/13/20 Page 2 of 2