Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03424/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03424-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:15 Antitrust Litigation

---

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

CAVE CONSULTING GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

OPTUMINSIGHT, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-03424-JCS 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY

Re: Dkt. No. 167

This Court previously granted a motion by Defendant OptumInsight, Inc. to stay pending 

interlocutory appeal the Court’s previous order granting in part a motion to compel production of 

documents. The Court stayed OptumInsight’s document production obligations until twenty-one 

days following the disposition of OptumInsight’s interlocutory appeal. The United States Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied OptumInsight’s petition for interlocutory appeal on 

February 24, 2017. Although the Federal Circuit’s order was without prejudice to OptumInsight 

filing a subsequent petition for mandamus, it disposed of the interlocutory appeal within the 

meaning of this Court’s previous order granting a stay.

OptumInsight now moves once again to stay its discovery obligations pending the outcome 

of a petition for mandamus. See dkt. 167. The Court finds that OptumInsight has not met its 

burden to obtain a further stay. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433−34 (2009). In the 

discretion of the Court, that motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 7, 2017

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-03424-JCS Document 172 Filed 03/07/17 Page 1 of 1