Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00123/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00123-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:2671 Federal Tort Claims Act (Definitions)

---

1

19cv123-MMA(MSB)

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

CLIENT SOLUTIONS ARCHITECTS, LLC, et 

al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

Case No.: 19cv123-MMA(MSB)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY AND 

VACATING REMAINING DATES PENDING 

RESOLUTION OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT 

[ECF NO. 27]

On January 17, 2020, Defendant United States of America filed a “Motion to Stay

Proceedings Pending Resolution of United States’ Motion for Summary Judgment.” (ECF 

No. 27.) Defendant asks the Court to stay discovery and further proceedings in this case 

pending the District Judge’s ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment. (Id. at 1.) In 

support, Defendant states that the stay is warranted for the following reasons: (1) its 

Motion for Summary Judgment is “potentially dispositive of the entire case”; 

(2) Plaintiffs do not require any discovery to oppose the motion; (3) the Motion for 

Summary Judgment is “premised upon undisputed facts and will be decided solely as a

matter of law”; and (4) staying discovery will avoid “costly and time-consuming expert 

discovery, which would need to begin immediately pursuant to the Court’s Scheduling 

Case 3:19-cv-00123-MMA-MSB Document 28 Filed 01/22/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

19cv123-MMA(MSB)

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

Order.” (Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiffs did not file an opposition to Defendant’s motion to stay. 

(See Docket.)

District courts have “broad discretion to stay discovery in a case while a 

dispositive motion is pending.” Orchid Biosciences, Inc. v. St. Louis Univ., 198 F.R.D. 670, 

672 (S.D. Cal. 2001) (citing Data Disc, Inc. v. Sys. Tech. Assocs., Inc., 557 F.2d 1280 (9th 

Cir. 1977)); see also Hachette Distrib., Inc. v. Hudson Cty. News Co., Inc., 136 F.R.D. 356 

(E.D.N.Y.1991) (“[T]he federal district courts have discretion to impose a stay of 

discovery pending the determination of dispositive motions[.]”). This discretion derives 

from the district court’s “power to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 

681, 706 (1997). “A case by case analysis is required, since the determination will 

necessarily be fact specific and will depend upon the particular circumstances and 

posture of the case at issue.” Orchid Biosciences, Inc., 198 F.R.D. at 672.

In this case, Plaintiffs Client Solutions Architects, LLC (“CSA”) and The Hartford

brought a subrogation claim against Defendant United States pursuant to the Federal 

Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs brought the suit in place of 

Michelle Gibson, a former CSA employee, alleging that Gibson contracted a mold 

infection due to exposure to environmental conditions while working as a contractor 

employee at the U.S. Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command. (See id.) On 

August 1, 2019, the Court conducted an Early Neutral Evaluation Conference and Case 

Management Conference, and issued a “Scheduling Order Regulating Discovery and 

Other Pre-Trial Proceedings” (“Scheduling Order”). (See ECF Nos. 21 & 22.) On January 

15, 2020, Defendant United States of America filed a “Motion for Summary Judgment.” 

(ECF No. 25.) 

As discussed above, Plaintiffs have not opposed Defendant’s motion to stay. 

Further, the Court notes that Defendant moves for summary judgment arguing that 

Plaintiffs’ suit is barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations under the FTCA. 

(See id.) As such, it does not appear that Plaintiffs would require additional discovery to 

oppose Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Further, because the District

Case 3:19-cv-00123-MMA-MSB Document 28 Filed 01/22/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

19cv123-MMA(MSB)

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

Judge’s ruling on the pending Motion for Summary Judgement may dispose of the entire 

action, at this stage of the litigation, remaining discovery concerning the merits of the

case, including expert discovery, would be burdensome and costly. 

Accordingly, in light of the facts and procedural posture of this case, the Court 

finds good cause to stay discovery pending the District Judge’s ruling on the Motion for 

Summary Judgment and GRANTS Defendant’s unopposed motion to stay discovery [ECF 

No. 27]. Having consulted with the chambers of District Judge Anello, the Court 

VACATES all remaining dates in the Scheduling Order. (See ECF No. 22.) If the case is 

not dismissed, the parties are ORDERED to contact the chambers of Judge Berg within 

three (3) business days of the District Judge’s ruling on the pending Motion for 

Summary Judgment [ECF No. 25] to reset dates. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-00123-MMA-MSB Document 28 Filed 01/22/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3