Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-05283/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-05283-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fair Labor Standards Act

---

1

Case No.: 5:16-cv-05283-EJD

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S ADMIN MOTION

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

ARVIND GUPTA,

Plaintiff,

v.

WIPRO LIMITED, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:16-cv-05283-EJD 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION

Re: Dkt. No. 45

On December 9, 2016, Plaintiff Arvind Gupta (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed the 

instant “Administrative Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response in Opposition to 

Defendants’ Motions for Sanctions/Pre-Filing Injunction and Administrative Motion for Leave to 

Conduct Limited Discovery and Deposition” (Dkt. No. 45). Defendants Wipro, Ltd. and Azim H. 

Premji (collectively, “Defendants”) oppose the motion as to the request to conduct discovery, but 

not as to the extension of time. Based on a review of the action, the court orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s unopposed request for a two month extension of time to file a response 

to Defendants’ “Motion for Sanctions / Motion for Pre-Filing Injunction” is hereby GRANTED. 

Plaintiff shall submit his Opposition to Defendants’ motions, if any, on or before February 17, 

2017. Defendants shall file any Reply on or before March 3, 2016. The court declines to set a 

schedule for any additional unfiled motions at this time. 

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Conduct Limited Discovery and Deposition is 

DENIED. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 “a party may not seek discovery from 

any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f),” unless otherwise 

authorized by the Rules, stipulation of the parties, or court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d). A court 

may grant a request for early discovery prior to a Rule 26(f) conference where the requesting party 

demonstrates good cause. See Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electorn Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 

(N.D.Cal. 2002). “Good cause may be found where the need for expedited discovery, in 

Case 5:16-cv-05283-EJD Document 47 Filed 12/16/16 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No.: 5:16-cv-05283-EJD

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S ADMIN MOTION

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

consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party.” Id.

Here, as to the discovery request, Plaintiff contends that limited early discovery of his 

employment records is necessary in order for him “to respond to Wipro and Premji’s ‘motion to 

dismiss’, and ‘motion for sanctions / motion for pre filing injunction’” and would be “useful in 

support of his claims.” Pl. Admin. Mot. at 3. Similarly, as to his request to conduct a deposition, 

Plaintiff argues that Monica Rodriguez possess certain employment information that “is material 

to Wipro and Premji’s allegations in their motions and any response to be filed by Plaintiff.” Id. at 

3-4. However, the disposition of a motion to dismiss or a motion for sanctions is not based on 

evidence obtained by way of discovery or deposition at this stage of proceedings. Rather, a 

motion to dismiss tests the sufficiency of the complaint as pled under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(6). Indeed, the court generally does not consider any material beyond the 

pleadings for a Rule 12(b)(6) analysis. Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 

1542, 1555 n. 19 (9th Cir. 1990); Americopters, LLC v. FAA, 441 F.3d 726, 732 n.4 (9th Cir.

2006). Exceptions to this rule include material submitted as part of the complaint or relied upon in 

the complaint, and material subject to judicial notice. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 

688-69 (9th Cir.2001). And as to the motion for sanctions, nothing in the limited discovery sought 

by Plaintiff here would be responsive to such a motion. 

Plaintiff advances no other argument in support of his request. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails 

to demonstrate good cause for conducting early discovery in exception to the requirements of Rule 

26. See Chukwudebe v. Lu, No. C-13-5466 EMC, 2014 WL 46650, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 2014)

(denying the plaintiff’s request for leave to conduct discovery on the grounds that doing would not

be useful to plaintiff in opposing the Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 16, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-05283-EJD Document 47 Filed 12/16/16 Page 2 of 2