Gallagher v. Philipps ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Case No.: 20-cv-0993-JLS(BLM) 11 EDWARD R. GALLAGHER, 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT DAVID PHILIPPS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO 13 v. STAY DISCOVERY 14 DAVID PHILIPPS and THOMAS W. HARKER, [ECF No. 59] in his capacity as Acting Secretary of the 15 Navy, 16 Defendants. 17 18 On April 12, 2021, Defendant David Philipps filed an Unopposed Motion to Stay Discovery. 19 ECF No. 59. Defendant Philipps previously filed an motion on September 28, 2020, “to 20 postpone the ENE Conference, CMC, and the related discovery deadlines”. ECF No. 28. Plaintiff 21 Edward R. Gallagher opposed the motion, arguing that “an anti-SLAPP motion brought in federal 22 court in California violates the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) when it prevents application of the usual federal standards, including regarding discovery” and asserting that the 23 Court should open discovery. See ECF No. 32, at 3 (citing Rogers v. Home Shopping Network, 24 Inc., 57 F. Supp. 2d 973 (C.D. Cal. 1999)). The Court denied Defendant Philipps’s motion finding 25 that the pending anti-SLAPP motion, which was not yet fully briefed, may require discovery and 26 that the “case will benefit from a timely ENE and CMC.” ECF No. 35, at 5. 27 On October 7, 2020, District Judge Janis L. Sammartino issued a Order 28 1 discovery stay to this action. See ECF No. 34, at 2. After the parties filed Supplemental Briefs addressing this issue, none of the parties contended that the automatic stay should apply to the 2 present action. See ECF Nos. 37, 38, & 39. Plaintiff claimed the automatic discovery stay would 3 conflict with FRCP 56 and is inapplicable to his federal claims against Braithwaite and his Florida 4 state law claims. ECF No. 38, at 2-6. Defendant Philipps conceded “that C.C.P. § 425.16(g) 5 [did] not apply to anti-SLAPP motions brought in federal court”. ECF No. 39, at 1. Defendant 6 Braithwaite took no position as to whether the automatic stay could or should apply to Plaintiff’s 7 claims against Philipps, but asserted the stay would not apply to the federal claims brought 8 against him. ECF No. 37, at 1-2. Ultimately, the Court found “that the automatic stay of 9 California Civil Procedure Section 425.16(g) is inapplicable to this matter.” See ECF No. 41, at 2. However, the Court also stated that, “[s]hould Philipps wish to request a [discretionary] stay 10 of discovery pending the resolution of his Anti-SLAPP Motion, he may file a noticed motion 11 seeking that relief, so that Plaintiff may have the opportunity to respond to Philipps’ arguments 12 and the Court may have the benefit of the Parties’ full briefing on the issue.” Id. 13 Defendant Philipps’s current motion requesting a discretionary stay of discovery is 14 unopposed. See ECF No. 59. Defendant seeks to stay discovery “because the pending Anti- 15 SLAPP Motion is potentially dispositive of the entire case and can be decided absent additional 16 discovery, and because the balance of harms weighs in favor of staying discovery.” Id. (citing 17 Openiano v. Hartford Life & Annuity Ins. Co., 18-cv-0943-AJB-AGS, 2018 WL 9516045, at *1-2 18 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2018)). 19 The Court has the discretion to stay discovery as part of its “inherent power to control the disposition of the cases on its docket in a manner which will promote economy of time and 20 effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Al Otro Lado, Inc. v. Nielsen, No. 17-cv-2366- 21 BAS-KSC, 2018 WL 679483, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2018) (quoting Moser v. Encore Cap. Grp., 22 Inc., No. 04-cv-2085-LAB, 2007 WL 1114113, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2007)). Although “the 23 Ninth Circuit has not set out an exact standard, courts in this district have generally followed a 24 two-pronged analysis.” Id., at *1. “A moving party meets the good cause requirement of 25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) when the Court finds (1) the pending motion is potentially 26 dispositive of the entire case, and (2) it can be decided absent additional discovery. Id. (citing 27 Adams v. AllianceOne, Inc., 2008 WL 11336721 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2008). Both prongs must be 28 satisfied to stay discovery. Id. Here, the parties agree that both elements are satisfied. ECF 1 No. 59. The Court agrees and finds that no party will be unduly prejudiced by the requested 3 discovery stay. Counsel for Plaintiff and the Navy disagree as to the scope of the discovery stay. ECF ; No. 59-1, Declaration of Thomas R. Burke In Support of Defendant David Philipps’s Motion to 4 Stay Discovery, at J§] 7-9. The Navy seeks a stay of all discovery “with the remaining 6 weeks of discovery to immediately recommence upon the Court's resolution of the Anti-SLAPP Motion.” 6 Id., at | 7. Plaintiff concurs with the requested stay but “hope[s] . . . the Navy will continue to 7 ||‘process’ the document requests Plaintiff already propounded” as they “require an extensive 8 search of the Navy’s systems and, likely, a declassification review[.]” Id., at § 8. The Court g it appropriate to stay all discovery with the remaining period of discovery to recommence 10 immediately upon Judge Sammartino’s ruling on the Anti-SLAPP motion. The Court, however, ll notes that it will not extend the time allowed for the Navy to respond to Plaintiff’s pending D discovery motions so if the responses require a lengthy review, the Navy should continue to work on their response during the stay. 13 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant Philipps’s unopposed motion to stay 14 discovery. All future dates and deadlines, including all deadlines for serving and responding to 15 discovery, are stayed and will recommence immediately upon the filing of Judge Sammartino’s 16 ||order on Defendant Philipps’s anti-SLAPP motion. To be clear, this order means that if a 17 || discovery response currently is due 10 days from today, the response will be due 10 days after 18 ||Judge Sammartino’s order. Similarly, if a court deadline, such as the deadline for designating 19 ||experts, is 30 days from today then the deadline for designating experts will be 30 days after 50 Judge Sammartino’s order. To prevent confusion, the parties must file within five court days after the issuance of Judge Sammartino’s order, a joint status report and proposed order containing all of the new dates and deadlines. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 4/21/2021 iy, be He wr Hon. Barbara L. Major 25 United States Magistrate Judge 26 27 28 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