Graham
Graham v. Central Garden & Pet Company
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 HILLORI GRAHAM, Case No. 22-cv-06507-JSC
Plaintiff,
ORDER RE: MOTION TO STAY
v. DISCOVERY
CENTRAL GARDEN & PET COMPANY, Re: Dkt. No. 22 Defendant.
12 Plaintiff sues Defendant for making misleading marketing claims on its cat-calming products. (Dkt. No. 1.) Before the Court is Defendant’s motion to stay discovery pending an order on its earlier-filed motion to dismiss, which will be heard in a little over one month. (Dkt. No. 22; see Dkt. No. 18.) After carefully considering the briefing, the Court concludes that oral argument is unnecessary, see N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), VACATES the February 23, 2023 hearing, and DENIES the motion. DISCUSSION “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 600 (D. Nev. 2011). “Had the Federal Rules…