Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-01057/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-01057-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 47:227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment

---

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

PAUL IZOR,

Plaintiff,

v.

ABACUS DATA SYSTEMS, INC,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-01057-HSG 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR AN 

ORDER TEMPORARILY STAYING 

CASE DEADLINES, DENYING 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR 

REFERRAL, AND DENYING AS 

MOOT MOTION TO EXPEDITE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 53, 54, 55

Defendant moved the Court to stay the case “until the Supreme Court decides the 

constitutionality of the TCPA in Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants Inc., 19-

631.” Dkt. No. 50. Given the case schedule and other approaching deadlines, this motion was 

accompanied by a flurry of administrative motions, which the Court addresses in this Order.

The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant’s motion for an order 

amending the scheduling order or temporarily staying case deadlines. Dkt. No. 54. The parties 

are directed to proceed with the previously-coordinated March 3, 2020 Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. 

The Court reminds Defendant that it has no authority to unilaterally decline to participate in 

discovery absent an order. The Court will otherwise stay the remaining case deadlines until the 

Court resolves Defendant’s motion to stay. 

The Court further DENIES Plaintiff’s administrative motion for referral to a magistrate 

judge for discovery purposes. Dkt. No. 53. The issues raised by Plaintiff’s motion are not 

discovery disputes: they are substantive case management issues related to the motion to stay. 

The parties are directed to proceed as outlined above.

//

//

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 57 Filed 03/02/20 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

Finally, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendant’s motion to expedite the hearing on the 

motion for an order amending the scheduling order to stay case deadlines. Dkt. No. 55. This 

Order resolves the motion and the Court does not need further briefing or a hearing. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 3/2/2020

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 57 Filed 03/02/20 Page 2 of 2