Heck v. Amazon.com, Inc. ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JULIA HECK, Case No. 22-cv-03986-JSW 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 v. STAY DISCOVERY PENDING RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS 10 AMAZON.COM, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 37 Defendants. 11 12 13 Now before the Court for consideration is the motion to stay discovery filed by Defendants 14 Amazon.com, Inc. and Audible, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”). The Court has considered the 15 parties’ papers, relevant legal authority, and the record in the case, and it finds this matter suitable 16 for disposition without oral argument. See N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). The Court VACATES the 17 hearing scheduled for November 18, 2022. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS 18 Defendants’ motion. 19 BACKGROUND 20 Plaintiff Julia Heck (“Plaintiff”) filed the original complaint in this action on May 16, 2022 21 in Humboldt County Superior Court. (Dkt. No. 1.) Amazon removed the complaint to federal 22 court on July 7, 2022 and subsequently moved to dismiss the original complaint. (See Dkt. Nos. 1, 23 19.) In response to Amazon’s original motion to dismiss, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint 24 (“FAC”). (Dkt. No. 21.) In the FAC, Plaintiff alleges that she agreed through her Amazon Prime 25 account to a “No-Rush Shipping Program,” through which she received digital credits for 26 purchases from Amazon. Plaintiff alleges that instead of providing her with free credits, Amazon 27 enrolled her in Audible without her knowledge or consent. Based on this conduct, Plaintiff alleges 1 Defendants have moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and they move to stay discovery 2 pending resolution of that motion. (See Dkt. Nos. 36, 37.) 3 ANALYSIS 4 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) provides that a court may “for good cause, issue an 5 order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or 6 expense” by, inter alia, forbidding discovery or by specifying terms, including time and place, for 7 disclosure or discovery. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(c)(1)(A)-(B). The Court has discretion to stay 8 discovery pending the resolution of dispositive motions and motions to dismiss. See, e.g., Jarvis 9 v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Wood v. McEwen, 644 F.2d 797, 801 (9th 10 Cir. 1981) (good cause to stay discovery may exist where a court is “convinced that the plaintiff 11 will be unable to state a claim for relief”). “A party seeking a stay of discovery carries the heavy 12 burden of making a ‘strong showing’ why discovery should be denied.” Gray v. First Winthrop 13 Corp., 133 F.R.D. 39, 40 (N.D. Cal. 1990) (quoting Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 14 429 (9th Cir. 1975)). “The moving party must show a particular and specific need for the 15 protective order, as opposed to making stereotyped or conclusory statements.” Id. (citations 16 omitted). 17 In determining whether to grant a protective order to stay discovery pending resolution of 18 dispositive motions, the Court considers the following two factors: (1) whether the pending 19 motion is potentially dispositive of the entire case, or at least dispositive on the issue at which 20 discovery is directed; and (2) whether the pending dispositive motion can be decided absent 21 additional discovery. The Pacific Lumber Co. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 22 220 F.R.D. 349, 352 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (internal citations omitted); see also In re Nexus 6p Prod. 23 Liab. Litig., No. 17-cv-2185-BLF, 2017 WL 3581188, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2017) (citing 24 cases). If the two above questions are answered affirmatively, the court may issue a protective 25 order. Pac. Lumber Co., 220 F.R.D. at 352. “However, if either prong of this test is not 26 established, discovery proceeds.” Id. 27 Defendants move to dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. 1 identify several purported deficiencies in Plaintiff’s pleading that would render the complaint 2 subject to dismissal in its entirety. 3 Plaintiff does not meaningfully engage with the substance of Defendants’ arguments 4 regarding the deficiency of the allegations in the complaint. Instead, Plaintiff argues Defendants 5 have failed to show that the motion to dismiss would be potentially case dispositive because the 6 allegations, if dismissed, could be cured through amendment. However, the fact that Plaintiff 7 could possibly remedy any deficient allegations with leave to amend is not germane to the 8 question before the Court on a motion to stay discovery: whether Defendants’ motion is 9 potentially dispositive of the entire case.” Pac. Lumber Co., 220 F.R.D. at 351 (emphasis added). 10 The Court expresses no opinion on the merits of the motion to dismiss. However, after a 11 preliminary review of the and Plaintiff’s opposition, the Court finds Defendants’ arguments are 12 potentially dispositive of the entire case and concludes that Defendants have satisfied the first 13 prong of the test. 14 Defendants argue the second prong is met because the Court can resolve the motion to 15 dismiss on the pleadings without discovery. Plaintiff does not dispute that the Court can decide 16 the pending motion to dismiss without discovery. The Court finds no discovery is needed for 17 resolution of Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and thus concludes that Defendants have met their 18 burden under the second prong of the test. 19 The Court also finds Plaintiff would not be prejudiced by a stay of discovery pending a 20 ruling on Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Court has not yet entered a scheduling order and 21 has continued the case management conference pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. 22 Thus, Plaintiff will not suffer harm if the Court stays discovery briefly. 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // ] The Court therefore finds that Defendants have met their burden to show a stay of 2 || discovery is warranted. Defendants’ motion to stay discovery until the pending motion to dismiss 3 is resolved is GRANTED. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: November 1, 2022 / “ | ) 6 HS JEFPREY/S/ WHI 7 United Spptes Di ict Judge 8 9 10 1] 13 16 «17 Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28