1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 EUREKA DIVISION 7 8 JEFFREY EDELMAN, et al., Case No. 25-cv-02036-TLT (RMI)

9 Plaintiffs,

ORDER ON MOTION TO LIFT STAY

10 v. Re: Dkt. Nos. 27, 28 11 GEORGE BICKERSTAFF, et al., 12 Defendants.

13 14 Before the court is Plaintiffs’ motion (dkt. 27) to lift the stay of discovery in this matter. 15 Defendants have responded in opposition (dkt. 28). The court heard oral argument on this issue 16 on June 10, 2025. Having considered the briefing and arguments, the court will DENY Plaintiffs’ 17 motion to lift the stay for the reasons stated below. 18 Discovery in this matter is presently stayed under the Private Securities Litigation Reform 19 Act (PSLRA). Plaintiffs have moved to lift the stay for the limited purpose of obtaining the 20 documents Defendants produced in a related case. Plaintiffs say that without these documents, 21 they are at an “informational disadvantage” which impacts their ability to make settlement and 22 litigation decisions. They also claim that because the documents in question have already been 23 compiled, Defendants will not be prejudiced by having to produce them again. 24 The PSLRA provides that “[i]n any private action arising under this chapter, all discovery 25 and other proceedings shall be stayed during the pendency of any motion to dismiss, until the 26 court finds upon the motion of any party that particularized discovery is necessary to preserve 27 evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to that party.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(3)(B). Accordingly, 1 necessary either to preserve evidence or prevent undue prejudice. Eisner v. Meta Platforms, 2024 2 WL 2749433, at *4 (N.D. Ca. May 28, 2024). The court concludes that Plaintiffs’ request fails 3 both prongs of this test. 4 First, “[t]o satisfy the requirement of ‘particularized’ discovery, Plaintiff must ‘adequately 5 specify the target of the requested discovery and the types of information needed to relieve that 6 burden.’” Eisner, 2024 WL 2749433, at *5 (quoting In re Asyst Techs., Inc., Derivative Litig., 7 2008 WL 916883, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2008)). At least two federal courts in this state have 8 held that a request for all materials produced in related actions is insufficiently particular as to the 9 target and type of information requested. See In re Meta Platforms, Inc., Secs. Litig., 2024 WL 10 923770, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2024) (“The Court is not convinced that Plaintiffs’ discovery 11 request is particularized as Plaintiffs’ broad request for all materials disclosed in three sets of cases 12 fails to identify the volume of discovery requested or the subject matter of those documents.”); In 13 re Am. Funds Secs. Litig., 493 F.Supp.2d 1103, 1107 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (request for all documents 14 produced to the government by a defendant improperly failed to assert specific relevance of those 15 documents to the plaintiff’s case). In the present case, Plaintiffs are requesting a large volume of 16 documents—800,000 of them, to be precise. This far-ranging request is not “targeted” in terms of 17 covering any specific subject matter or alleviating any specific burden. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ 18 request is insufficiently particular to warrant lifting the stay. 19 Further, Plaintiffs have not shown that the proposed discovery is necessary to prevent 20 undue prejudice.1 While Plaintiffs contend that they are at an informational disadvantage because 21 other interested parties have the documents Plaintiffs seek, courts in this District have held that an 22 informational disadvantage alone is not “undue prejudice” for PSLRA purposes. See In re 23 Facebook, Inc., Derivative Privacy Litig., 411 F.Supp.3d 649, 653 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (“[A]n 24 ‘informational disadvantage,’ without more, does not justify lifting a PSLRA discovery stay.”) 25 (collecting cases); In re Asyst, 2008 WL 916883, at *2 (“Plaintiffs’ argument that they need to be 26 on an equal footing with other investigative agencies by obtaining documents already produced to 27 ] those other agencies, without more, does not justify lifting the discovery stay.”). While Plaintiffs 2 || cite numerous cases reaching different conclusions, all but one are from outside the Ninth Circuit. 3 The one matter they cite from within this Circuit, a Central District of California case, is 4 || materially distinguishable: the stay in that matter had already been lifted by the time the discovery 5 || was sought. See Jn re New Century, 2009 WL 9568860, at *4 (C.D. Cal. July 8, 2009). This court 6 || will follow the consensus in this district and hold that an informational disadvantage standing 7 || alone does not constitute unfair prejudice which would justify lifting a PSLRA stay. 8 Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to lift the stay in this matter is DENIED. However, as 9 || discussed at the hearing, the court encourages the parties to meet and confer about the possibility 10 || ofa more targeted discovery exchange in aid of the parties’ settlement efforts. 1] IT IS SO ORDERED. qa 12 Dated: June 12, 2025

(14

ROBERT M. ILLMAN

Id United States Magistrate Judge 16

17

Z 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28