Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-01189/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-01189-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

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 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

1

underlying the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

GUIFU LI, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

A PERFECT DAY FRANCHISE, INC., et

al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 10-1189 LHK PVT

ORDER TENTATIVELY FINDING

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION REQUESTING

DISCOVERY RE ARBITRABILITY

MOOT

(Re: Docket No. 47)

On August 2, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Motion Requesting Discovery re Arbitrability, along

with a motion to shorten time for hearing that motion. Having reviewed the papers submitted by the 1

parties, the court finds it appropriate to issue this order without further briefing or oral argument. 

Based on the moving papers presented,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the court tentatively finds Plaintiffs’ motion MOOT. From

the docket herein, it appears that the parties have already met and conferred regarding the limits on

discovery and regarding preserving discoverable evidence. See Joint Case Management Conference

Statement (docket no. 29, ¶¶ 6 & 8). While the parties have not yet made their initial disclosures,

they have agreed on a date for initial disclosures. See Joint Case Management Conference Statement

Case 5:10-cv-01189-LHK Document 52 Filed 08/04/10 Page 1 of 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

ORDER, page 2

(docket no. 29, ¶ 7). As it appears the parties have had a substantive Rule 26(f) meet and confer, and

because the deadline for them to complete that meet and confer has passed, the Rule 26(d) stay on

discovery is no longer in effect. No other stay on discovery appears on the docket. Thus, discovery

is open and no motion for leave to conduct discovery is necessary.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Defendants contend the Rule 26(d) stay on discovery

remains in effect, then no later than August 9, 2010, Defendants shall file a brief setting forth the

basis for that contention, and also responding to the Plaintiffs’ motion to shorten time. If the

Defendants do not file any such brief on or before August 9, 2010, this tentative order will become

final without further action by the court.

Dated: 8/3/10

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:10-cv-01189-LHK Document 52 Filed 08/04/10 Page 2 of 2