Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00826/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00826-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Fresno
Defendant
Barry Stuart Halajian
Plaintiff
Kelly Yost
Defendant

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARRY STUART HALAJIAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

KELLY YOST, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:24-cv-00826-JLT-SKO

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(Doc. 23)

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Barry Halajian (“Plaintiff”)’s “Ex Parte Notice of 

Motion and Motion for Leave to Set a Date for a Deposition of a Witness and for Documents to 

Obtain Disclosures of Economic Losses of Steve Dovali Construction,” filed December 13, 2024. 

(Doc. 23.) Defendants Kelly Yost and the City of Fresno (collectively “Defendants”) filed an 

opposition to the motion on December 17, 2024. (Doc. 24.)

For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion shall be denied without prejudice.

I. BACKGROUND

1. Factual Background

On February 21, 2024, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this action against Defendants 

alleging that he entered into a contract with Dovali Construction, Inc. (“Dovali”) to provide 

electrical construction materials and services for a project to construct site improvements at 

municipal city wells that provide potable water to the City. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants 

“refus[ed] to issue and with[held] payment due for labor, the furnishing of electrical construction 

materials and other related items.” (Doc. 1 at 3.)

Case 1:24-cv-00826-JLT-SKO Document 25 Filed 12/19/24 Page 1 of 5
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

2

Plaintiff alleges he is owed $200,000 based on the services he provided under the contract. 

(Id. at 43.) Plaintiff also alleges he “has been denied normal progress payments for labor and 

materials and profit that is usually made in installments.” (Id. at 14.) He seeks injunctive relief, 

“compelling the Defendants to pay the full amount of the money with interest owed for the services 

Plaintiff and Dovali provided without deductions of monetary sanctions that were imposed 

unlawfully because of the several delays that were outside of Plaintiff and Dovali’s direct control.”

(Id. at 35.) Plaintiff also requests the Court to order Defendants to pay Dovali portions of the grants 

specifically designated for cost increases. (Id. at 35-36.)

2. Procedural History

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on July 15, 2024. (Doc. 5.) Defendants move to 

dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), asserting that 

Plaintiff has failed to state a claim. (See id.) Plaintiff filed his opposition on August 22, 2024. 

(Doc. 15.)

The motion was referred to the undersigned for the preparation of findings and 

recommendations. (See Docs. 6, 12.) On October 15, 2024, findings and recommendations were 

issued recommending the Court grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss with leave to amend. (Doc. 

20.) On November 6, 2024, Plaintiff timely filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 

(Doc. 22.) The findings and recommendations remain pending before the district judge.

On November 5, 2024, the undersigned issued a minute order continuing the mandatory 

scheduling conference, sua sponte, to March 13, 2025, in view of the pending findings and 

recommendations. (See Doc. 21.) Plaintiff filed the instant motion on December 13, 2024. (Doc. 

23.)

II. DISCUSSION

Although not entirely clear, Plaintiff appears to seek an order compelling Defendants to 

serve initial disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) and permitting him to seek 

discovery from third party Dovali. (See Doc. 23 at 1, 7–8.) Plaintiff purports to seek this discovery 

so that he can “obtain additional evidence of [his] compliance with the Monell doctrine.” (Id. at 1.)

Rule 26(a)(1)(C) requires that a party make initial disclosures “at or within 14 days after the 

Case 1:24-cv-00826-JLT-SKO Document 25 Filed 12/19/24 Page 2 of 5
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

3

parties’ Rule 26(f) conference unless a different time is set by stipulation or court order.” Here, 

because the parties have not held their Rule 26(f) conference, and there is no stipulation or court 

order directing the parties to serve initial disclosures, Plaintiff’s demand for such disclosures is 

premature and will be denied at this time. See Zappia v. World Sav. Bank FSB, No. 14CV1428-

WQH (DHB), 2015 WL 1608921, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2015) (“Initial disclosures are not due 

until 14 days after the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. Here, the Rule 26(f) conference has not yet 

occurred, and there has been no court order or stipulation setting a different timeline. Accordingly, 

Wells Fargo does not have any obligation to make initial disclosures at this stage in the litigation.”) 

(internal citations omitted).

Regarding Plaintiff’s request to pursue deposition or written discovery from a third party 

prior to Rule 26(f) conference, such request will be denied. Rule 26(d) states:

A party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred 

as required by Rule 26(f), except in a proceeding exempted from initial disclosure 

under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by 

court order.

As set forth above, the parties have not yet held a Rule 26(f) conference, so in the absence of a 

stipulation, Plaintiff may obtain early discovery under Rule 26(d) only by court order upon a 

showing of good cause. See, e.g., Roadrunner Intermodal Servs., LLC v. T.G.S. Transportation, 

Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-01056-DAD-BAM, 2017 WL 3783017, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2017);

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 768 F. Supp. 2d 1040, 1044 (N.D. Cal. 2011); In re Countrywide 

Fin. Corp. Derivative Litig., 542 F. Supp. 2d 1160, 1179 (C.D. Cal. 2008). “Good cause may be 

found where the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, 

outweighs the prejudice to the responding party.” Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron America, Inc., 

208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D. Cal. 2002). Plaintiff has not mentioned, much less demonstrated, good 

cause to justify early discovery at this time, particularly where the discovery sought, e.g., 

“compliance with the Monell Doctrine,” will not affect a ruling on the pleadings. (See, e.g., Doc. 

20 (“In considering Defendants’ Motion, the Court accepts as true all factual allegations contained 

in the [complaint].”).)

Finally, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendants to participate in a Rule 26(f) 

Case 1:24-cv-00826-JLT-SKO Document 25 Filed 12/19/24 Page 3 of 5
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

4

conference so that he can “preserve [his] right to discovery” (see Doc. 23 at 1), such request will be 

denied. The Court is vested with broad discretion to manage the process of discovery and to control 

the course of litigation, see Hunt v. Cty. of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012), with the goal 

of ensuring the “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding,” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 1. This Court and others within the Ninth Circuit have declined to require participation 

in a Rule 26(f) conference where it is not “practicable,” given the stage of the proceedings. See

Zavala v. Kruse-Western, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-00239-DAD-SKO, 2019 WL 3219254 at *2, 3 (E.D. 

Cal. July 17, 2019). See also Jones v. Micron Tech. Inc., No. 18-CV-3805-JSW (KAW), 2019 WL 

5406824, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2019); In re Morning Song Bird Food Litig., No. 12CV1592-

JAH(RBB), 2013 WL 12143947, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2013); Contentguard Holdings, Inc. v. 

ZTE Corp., CASE NO. 12cv1226–CAB (MDD), 2013 WL 12072533, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 

2013).

Here, compelling Defendants to participate in a Rule 26(f) conference while the findings and 

recommendations are pending is not practicable.1 The undersigned’srecommendation that the Court 

grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss, with leave to amend, necessarily implicates the scope of 

discovery in this case. See, e.g., In re Morning Song Bird Food Litig., 2013 WL 12143947, at *3 

(denying motion to compel Rule 26(f) conference, deeming the plaintiffs’ “efforts to pursue written 

discovery in this action [] premature” where “the parties intend to engage in substantial motion 

practice to challenge the operative pleading.”); Contentguard, 2013 WL 12072533, at *2 (same, 

observing “[i]t would be inefficient and cause unnecessary expense for the parties to engage in 

discovery on claims that may not survive and defenses and counterclaims that may not be asserted”). 

Plaintiff has not articulated any good cause to conclude otherwise. See, e.g., Johnson v. United 

Cont’l Holdings, Inc., No. C-12-2730 MMC, 2014 WL 12823346, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 16, 2014) 

(denying motion to compel Rule 26(f) conference where the plaintiffs “fail[ed] to show why the []

conference should be conducted on an earlier date” than 21 days before the scheduling conference).

1 Nor is holding a scheduling conference, which is why the undersigned has continued the conference while the 

findings and recommendations are pending. (See Doc. 21.)

Case 1:24-cv-00826-JLT-SKO Document 25 Filed 12/19/24 Page 4 of 5
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

5

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s “Ex Parte Notice of Motion and Motion for Leave to Set 

a Date for a Deposition of a Witness and for Documents to Obtain Disclosures of Economic Losses 

of Steve Dovali Construction” (Doc. 23) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 19, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00826-JLT-SKO Document 25 Filed 12/19/24 Page 5 of 5