Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-05279/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-05279-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 15:1938 Fair Labor Standards 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

JACOB MCGRATH,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOORDASH, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-05279-EMC 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY 

DEADLINES

Docket No. 52

Defendant has filed a motion to stay proceedings in this case pending preliminary and final 

approval of a class action settlement in a case in state court. A hearing on this motion is currently 

set for January 23, 2020. Defendant’s motion to dismiss, as well as Plaintiff’s motion for 

conditional certification, have been temporarily stayed so that the Court may address the motion to 

stay proceedings first.

Defendant has now filed a motion to stay discovery deadlines pending the Court’s 

resolution of both (1) Defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and (2) Defendant’s motion to 

dismiss. Defendant has styled the motion to stay discovery deadlines as an administrative motion. 

The motion to stay discovery deadlines is not an administrative motion. This is now the second 

time that Defendant has improperly taken this approach in order to get its request for relief 

addressed on shortened time. Defendant is advised that the Court will not condone this conduct in 

the future, and Defendant may be sanctioned if it continues to engage in this behavior. If 

Defendant seeks substantive relief from the Court and wants that request heard on shortened time, 

then it must file a request for shortened time per the Civil Local Rules. 

As for the merits of the motion to stay discovery deadlines, it is denied. The Court 

previously ordered that discovery would proceed to the extent needed for mediation. See Docket 

Case 3:19-cv-05279-EMC Document 55 Filed 01/02/20 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

No. 36 (minutes for 11/14/2019 initial CMC) (“Parties stated they will proceed with discovery to 

prepare for mediation in the next two months.”). Defendant has failed to show that mediation 

would be completely unnecessary if the state court class action settlement were to be approved. 

Moreover, Defendant has failed to show that the filing of its motion to dismiss warrants a stay of 

discovery. If Defendant takes issue with the scope of the discovery (e.g., as being overbroad for 

purposes of mediation), that is a matter on which the parties should meet and confer.

This order disposes of Docket No. 52.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 2, 2020

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-05279-EMC Document 55 Filed 01/02/20 Page 2 of 2