Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03592/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03592-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

INTAGIO CORPORATION,

Plaintiff, No. C 06-3592 PJH

v. ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S

APPLICATION FOR A 

TIGER OAK PUBLICATIONS, INC., TEMPORARY STAY

Defendant.

_______________________________/

Before the court is defendant’s Ex Parte Application for a Temporary Stay. 

Defendant seeks to stay discovery in the instant action, pending the completion of the

parties’ upcoming mediation, or in the alternative, pending the court’s hearing and

resolution of defendant’s motion to dismiss. 

While labeled an “ex parte” application, defendant’s motion is no such thing. 

Defendant does not request any proceeding or relief without notice to the opposing party. 

Nor could defendant do so, unless expressly authorized by statute or local rule. See Civ.

L.R. 7-10. Defendant has not relied on an authorizing statute or local rule, despite its

invocation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b), since that rule governs the filing of

temporary restraining orders, not requests for discovery stays such as the one here. 

Notwithstanding the above, the court will treat defendant’s request for a discovery

stay as if it were a properly filed request to shorten time for a hearing on defendant’s

motion to stay, and GRANTS the request to shorten time. However, both parties having

fully briefed the merits of defendant’s request for a motion to stay discovery, the court finds

the matter ready for resolution without a hearing, and therefore rules as follows: 

Case 4:06-cv-03592-PJH Document 71 Filed 01/04/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Defendant’s request for a motion to stay discovery is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-03592-PJH Document 71 Filed 01/04/07 Page 2 of 2