McNamee

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL MCNAMEE, et al., Case No. 21-cv-01688-AGT

Plaintiffs,

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

v. FOR COURT INTERPRETATION OF

ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS

INDIGO SAN FRANCISCO, LLC,

Re: Dkt. No. 18 Defendant.

Last April, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the Court stayed this case pending the out- come of nine separate arbitrations, each between the defendant and one of the nine plaintiffs. See Dkt. 14 at 5. The arbitration proceedings are ongoing, but the plaintiffs have returned to the Court to seek a judicial determination of the discovery rules that should apply. The plaintiffs maintain that discovery should be governed by the JAMS discovery rules, while the defendant insists that there’s no basis for the Court to impose those rules and that disputes about the applicable discovery rules should be resolved in arbitration. The Court agrees with the defendant. “The arbitrator, and not the court, decides questions of procedure and discovery.” SWAB Fin., LLC v. E*Trade Sec., LLC, 150 Cal. App. 4th 1181, 1200 (2007). The parties’ arbitration agreements reflect this principal. They…