Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02231/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02231-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION FOR ORDER PERMITTING EXPEDITED DISCOVERY - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UTILITY CONSUMERS’ ACTION

NETWORK and ERIC TAYLOR, on behalf of

themselves, their members and/or all others

similarly situated, as applicable,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SPRINT SOLUTIONS, INC.; SPRINT

SPECTRUM LP; SPRINT-NEXTEL

CORPORATION,

Defendants.

Case No. C07-2231RJB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

APPLICATION FOR ORDER

PERMITTING EXPEDITED

DISCOVERY

This matter comes before the court on the above-referenced motion (Dkt. 13) The court is

familiar with the records and files herein and all documents filed in support of and in opposition to

the motion. For the following reasons, the motion should be denied.

First, the court notes that this is not an “ex parte” motion. 

The essence of this motion is a request that the court assist the plaintiffs by allowing

discovery rules to be used in an investigation. The matters plaintiffs wish to investigate are not

directly part of the issues raised in plaintiffs Amended Complaint (Dkt. 9). At this point, the

proposed investigation has not been shown to be relevant to the plaintiffs’ claim as required by

Case 3:07-cv-02231-RJB Document 25 Filed 04/14/08 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 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION FOR ORDER PERMITTING EXPEDITED DISCOVERY - 2

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b). Whether the matters referred to in plaintiffs’ motion are

within the proper scope of discovery may be addressed later in this litigation, but should be

addressed only after the parties have met and conferred as required by Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 26(f). 

Furthermore, the plaintiffs’ showing is simply not sufficient to justify discovery out of the

sequence contemplated in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d) and (f). 

Therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for Order Permitting Expedited Discovery

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(a) is DENIED. 

The Clerk of the Court is instructed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of

record and to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address.

DATED this 14th day of April, 2008.

AROBERT J. BRYAN

United States District Judge 

Case 3:07-cv-02231-RJB Document 25 Filed 04/14/08 Page 2 of 2