Smith v. Apple, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 CHRIS SMITH, et al., Case No. 21-cv-09527-HSG

Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY

DISCOVERY

v. Re: Dkt. No. 37 APPLE, INC., Defendant.

12 Pending before the Court is Defendant Apple, Inc.’s Motion to Stay Discovery, briefing for which is complete. See Dkt. Nos. 37, 40, 43. District courts have “wide discretion” to control discovery. Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). In evaluating the propriety of a request to stay discovery, the Court is mindful that the party seeking a discovery stay carries the “heavy burden” to make an adequate showing for why discovery should be denied. Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975). In moving to stay discovery, Defendant argues that its dismissal motion “will be potentially dispositive of the entire case or, at a minimum, of issues at which discovery is directed” and that a stay “would promote efficiency and avoid prejudice to Apple.” Mot. at…