Munoz v. Schooladvisor, LLC ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDWARDO MUNOZ, individually and on Case No. 1:20-cv-00440-NONE-EPG behalf of all others similarly situated, 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND v. DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S 14 MOTION TO STAY SCHOOLADVISOR, LLC, d/b//a 15 DEGREESEARCH.ORG, (ECF No. 22) 16 Defendant. 17 18 Currently before the Court is Defendant SchoolAdvisor, LLC, d/b/a/ DegreeSearch.org’s 19 (“Defendant”) Motion to Stay. (ECF No. 22.) Plaintiff Edwardo Munoz (“Plaintiff”) filed an 20 opposition to the motion on December 23, 2020, and Defendant replied on December 30, 2020. (ECF Nos. 23, 24.) On January 8, 2021, the Court held a hearing on the motion. Taylor Smith 21 appeared on behalf of Plaintiff and Mark Ellis appeared on behalf of Defendant. For the reasons 22 stated on the record during the hearing, and as stated herein, the Court grants the motion insofar 23 as it requests a stay before expert disclosures are required, but otherwise denies the motion. 24 District courts have broad discretion in deciding whether to stay a case. See Landis v. N. 25 Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power 26 inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time 27 and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”). The moving party has the burden to show that 28 1 a stay is appropriate. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997). In determining whether to enter 2 a stay, the court must consider the competing interests at stake, including (1) “the possible 3 damage which may result from the granting of a stay,” (2) “the hardship or inequity which a party 4 may suffer in being required to go forward,” and (3) “the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be 5 expected to result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) 6 (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55) (“Landis factors”). 7 Defendant requests that the case be stayed until the United States Supreme Court issues a 8 decision in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, Sup. Ct. Docket No. 19-511, 2020 WL 3865252 (pet. 9 granted July 9, 2020) (“Facebook”) clarifying whether the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 10 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq., requires an automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”) to have the 11 capacity to generate random or sequential numbers. (ECF No. 22-1.) As explained further on the 12 record, the burden of going forward is minimal because a stay at this stage of the proceedings 13 primarily concerns non-expert discovery, much of which will still be necessary regardless of the 14 outcome of Facebook. The Court further notes that it has already imposed some limitations on the 15 scope of discovery. (See ECF No. 17.) Additionally, it is not clear that the issue before the 16 Supreme Court in Facebook would be dispositive in this case. Although the Supreme Court’s 17 ruling might alter the applicable definition of an ATDS, the parties will need to conduct discovery 18 regarding the capacities of Defendant’s ATDS regardless of the definition. 19 Defendant has not met its burden of showing that a stay of the entire case is warranted at 20 this time. However, as discussed at the hearing, the parties agree that the ruling in Facebook will 21 likely impact expert opinions and a stay of expert discovery is appropriate. Accordingly, non- 22 expert discovery will continue but the Court will grant a stay of expert discovery pending the 23 Supreme Court’s decision in Facebook. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 24 1. Defendant’s Motion to Stay (ECF No. 22) is GRANTED IN PART AND 25 DENIED IN PART; 26 2. The Court GRANTS a stay of expert discovery pending the Supreme Court’s 27 decision in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, Sup. Ct. Docket No. 19-511; 28 1 a. The deadlines for designation of expert witnesses currently set for June 11, 2 2021, rebuttal designation of expert witnesses currently set for July 9, 3 2021, and the motion for class certification currently set for August 13, 4 2021 (ECF No. 17) are VACATED; 5 b. The parties shall meet and confer and file a joint status report no later than 6 fourteen (14) days after the Supreme Court issues a decision in Facebook, 7 Inc. v. Duguid, Sup. Ct. Docket No. 19-511, or fourteen (14) days after 8 conclusion of the Supreme Court’s 2020-2021 term, whichever is earlier. The parties’ joint status report shall include proposed dates for further ° scheduling as appropriate; 3. The remainder of Defendant’s request to stay is DENIED; and 4. The Status Conference currently set for June 21, 2021, is advanced to April 19, 2 2021, at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 10 (EPG) before the undersigned. The parties are 13 reminded to file a joint status report one full week prior to the conference and email a copy of the same, in Word format, to epgorders @caed.uscourts.gov. To 15 appear telephonically, each party is directed to use the following dial-in number 16 and passcode: 1-888-251-2909; passcode 1024453. 17 1g | IIS SO ORDERED. 19 | Dated: _ January 11, 2021 [sf hey 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28