IN RE PLAID INC. PRIVACY LITIGATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 JAMES COTTLE, et al., Case No. 20-cv-03056-DMR

Plaintiffs,

ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE

v. MOTION TO CONTINUE CASE

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

PLAID INC., Re: Dkt. No. 83 Defendant.

Defendant Plaid, Inc. filed an administrative motion to continue the October 7, 2020 initial case management conference until after resolution of its pending motion to dismiss. [Docket No. 83.] Although styled as a motion to continue the case management conference, Defendant’s motion actually seeks to continue the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference and thus stay discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d) (“A party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f) . . .”). Defendant seeks to stay discovery on the ground that its motion to dismiss “demonstrates that Plaintiffs’ claims fail as a matter of law,” and that the court’s ruling in its favor “would dismiss or substantially curtail Plaintiffs’ claims and obviate the…