Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04781/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04781-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

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 

PAYAL PATEL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

NIKE RETAIL SERVICES, INC., 

Defendant. 

Case No. 14-cv-04781-RS 

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION

TO NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL 

ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

AND GRANTING REQUEST FOR 

LIMITED STAY OF THAT ORDER

Nike Retail Services, Inc. seeks relief from an order of the assigned magistrate judge.1 

After Payal Patel’s motion for class certification was denied, she sought discovery in support of 

her representative action under the California Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”). Nike 

objected to that discovery on the grounds that (i) Patel failed to make a prima facie showing that 

such discovery would substantiate her PAGA allegations and (ii) trial on the PAGA claim would 

be unmanageable. The magistrate judge reviewed the discovery dispute and ordered Nike to 

produce PAGA-related discovery by October 31, 2016 (“discovery order”). In response, Nike 

filed a motion for relief from the discovery order, a motion to strike Patel’s representative PAGA 

allegations or, alternatively, for judgment on the pleadings, and an ex parte application to stay the 

discovery order until the motion to strike has been resolved.2

 

 

1

 While Nike styles its motion as a “Motion for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order of a 

Magistrate Judge,” it purports to set a hearing for November 17, 2016. Local Rule 72-2, which 

relates to such motions, provides: “Unless otherwise ordered by the assigned District Judge, no 

response need be filed and no hearing will be held concerning the motion. The District Judge may 

deny the motion by written order at any time, but may not grant it without first giving the 

opposing party an opportunity to respond.” The November 17, 2016 hearing on this motion is 

thus vacated. 

2

 Nike styled its request for a stay as an “ex parte” application. Under Civil Local Rule 7-10, an 

ex parte motion is one filed without notice to opposing party, and is permissible only where 

Case 3:14-cv-04781-RS Document 84 Filed 10/17/16 Page 1 of 3
ORDER RE: RELIEF FROM DISCOVERY ORDER

CASE NO. 14-cv-04781-RS

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 

To start, Nike objects to the discovery order. It asserts that the denial of class certification 

precludes Patel from pursuing a representative PAGA claim. Nike argues that prerequisites of 

Rule 23 apply to PAGA claims and that, even if Patel could pursue a representative PAGA action 

without meeting the requirements of Rule 23, the order denying class certification already 

established that the issues in this case cannot be effectively adjudicated on a representative basis. 

Thus, according to Nike, the magistrate judge’s order was contrary to law. A district court may 

modify a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive matter only if the order is “clearly 

erroneous” or “contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); Bahn v. NME 

Hospitals, Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1414 (9th Cir. 1991). Nike has failed to show such error here. At 

the time of the hearing on the discovery dispute, Patel’s representative PAGA claim was live and 

discovery relating to that claim was permissible. Though Nike disputed the continued viability of 

such claim at the hearing, it had not yet moved to strike Patel’s representative PAGA allegations 

or otherwise moved for judgment on that issue. Nike’s objection to the discovery order is 

overruled. 

In addition, Nike seeks a limited stay of the discovery order until its motion to strike or, 

alternatively, for judgment on the pleadings has been decided. That motion is set for hearing on 

November 17, 2016. A district court has broad discretion to stay discovery pending the resolution 

of a dispositive motion. Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). Courts in this 

district have applied a two-pronged test to determine whether to stay discovery temporarily when a 

dispositive motion is pending. See, e.g., Gibbs v. Carson, No. C–13–0860 TEH (PR), 2014 WL 

172187 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2014). First, the pending motion must be potentially dispositive of the 

issue at which discovery is directed. Id. at *3. Second, the court must determine whether the 

pending dispositive motion can be decided absent discovery. Id. Here, the pending motion to 

 

authorized under the circumstances by a statute, Federal Rule, local rule, or Standing Order. 

Nike’s application, however, was automatically served on Patel through the ECF system and thus 

was not brought on an ex parte basis. Because Nike’s stay request is a motion for relief from the 

discovery order, Local Rule 72-2 applies. Patel filed an opposition to the application, so the 

request may be granted by written order. 

Case 3:14-cv-04781-RS Document 84 Filed 10/17/16 Page 2 of 3
ORDER RE: RELIEF FROM DISCOVERY ORDER

CASE NO. 14-cv-04781-RS

3 

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

strike or, alternatively, for judgment on the pleadings is dispositive of the issue at which the 

discovery is directed, namely the representative PAGA action. In addition, a motion for judgment 

on the pleadings is “functionally identical” to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, Dworkin v. Hustler 

Magazine, Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir.1989), and “a district court may not consider any 

material beyond the pleadings in ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.” Lopez v. City of Los Angeles, 

250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001). Similarly, grounds for a motion to strike must be readily 

apparent from the face of the pleadings or from materials that may be judicially noticed. Fantasy, 

Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1528 (9th Cir. 1993), rev’d on other grounds, 510 U.S. 517 

(1994). Accordingly, the pending motion can be decided without discovery. Nike’s request for a 

limited stay of the discovery order is granted until its motion to strike or, alternatively, for 

judgment on the pleadings is decided. If that motion is denied, the stay will be lifted immediately. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 17, 2016 

______________________________________ 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

United States District Judge 

___________________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG

Case 3:14-cv-04781-RS Document 84 Filed 10/17/16 Page 3 of 3