Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01612/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01612-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:7413(b) Clean Air 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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GLOBAL COMMUNITY MONITOR, et 

al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

MAMMOTH PACIFIC, LP, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-1612-MCE-KJN 

ORDER 

On September 10, 2015, the court heard oral argument with respect to defendants’ motion 

for a protective order to stay all discovery pending resolution of defendants’ pending motion to 

dismiss before the district judge, which is presently set for hearing on October 1, 2015. At the 

hearing, attorney Richard Drury appeared on behalf of plaintiffs, and attorney Steven Jones 

appeared on behalf of defendants. 

As discussed in greater detail on the record at the hearing, the court agrees that certain 

discovery requests should be stayed pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss by the district 

judge, in light of the substantial time and expense apparently necessary for defendants to respond 

to those requests, which may ultimately prove unnecessary if the motion to dismiss is granted. 

However, such reasons do not apply to other, less burdensome discovery requests, for which 

responses can be provided with little time or expense. The parties have agreed to meet and 

Case 2:14-cv-01612-MCE-KJN Document 44 Filed 09/10/15 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

confer, and prepare a stipulation and proposed order for the court’s consideration identifying 

more precisely which discovery requests should be stayed, and which discovery requests may 

proceed, pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. 

Accordingly, and for the reasons stated in greater detail on the record, IT IS HEREBY 

ORDERED that: 

1. Defendants’ motion for a protective order (ECF No. 38) is GRANTED IN PART and 

DENIED IN PART. 

2. No later than September 17, 2015, the parties shall file with the court a stipulation and 

proposed order regarding a partial stay of discovery in accordance with the above. If 

the parties are ultimately unable to agree on an appropriate stipulation after exhausting 

good-faith meet-and-confer efforts, the parties shall contact the undersigned’s 

courtroom deputy clerk to schedule a further telephonic conference. 

3. By way of this order, the court expresses no opinion concerning the merits of the 

pending motion to dismiss, which will be resolved by the district judge. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 10, 2015 

 

Case 2:14-cv-01612-MCE-KJN Document 44 Filed 09/10/15 Page 2 of 2