Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00691/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00691-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:3604(f)(3)(c) Fair Housing Amendments Act

---

1

3:19-cv-691-AJB-AHG

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHALIECIA WILLIAMS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CAMDEN OLD CREEK, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-691-AJB-AHG

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 

PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE 

APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION 

TO BEGIN DISCOVERY

[ECF No. 17]

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for Permission to Begin 

Conducting Discovery. ECF No. 17. Since Plaintiffs’ counsel represented to the Court that 

this ex parte application would be opposed, the Court set a briefing schedule. ECF No. 18. 

Afterward, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ amended 

complaint. ECF Nos. 10, 19. Because the complaint has been dismissed, the request to 

conduct discovery is now moot, and the Court finds that pre-complaint discovery is 

unwarranted in this case. See, e.g., In Re Flash Memory Antitrust Litig., No. C07-0086-

SBA, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95869, at *18–*21, *24–*29 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2008)

Case 3:19-cv-00691-AJB-AHG Document 20 Filed 03/06/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

3:19-cv-691-AJB-AHG

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

(denying plaintiffs’ request for discovery when independent actions had been terminated 

and amended consolidated complaints had not yet been filed, explaining that precomplaint discovery was unwarranted). Therefore, the Court DENIES AS MOOT

Plaintiffs’ ex parte application without prejudice. Plaintiffs may renew their request1to 

conduct discovery after Defendants respond to Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint, 

should one be filed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2020

 

1 Should Plaintiffs renew their request, the parties are instructed to follow the Court’s 

Chambers Rules (available at

https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Judges/goddard/docs/Goddard%20Civil%20Pretrial%20P

rocedures.pdf). See Chmb.R. at 2 (requiring that such requests “be made to the Court by 

joint motion. . . . If the other party or parties oppose the request, they should set forth their 

position in the joint motion. Ex parte applications are disfavored...”).

Case 3:19-cv-00691-AJB-AHG Document 20 Filed 03/06/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2