Sidhu

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 PRIYA SIDHU, Case No. 22-cv-01603-BLF (SVK)

Plaintiff,

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE

v. Re: Dkt. No. 84 BAYER HEALTHCARE

PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,

11 Defendant. 12 Before the Court is the Parties’ joint submission in which the Parties dispute whether 13 Defendant must produce documents in response to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. See Dkt. 84. 14 Defendant argues that it is not required to produce discovery because Plaintiff—the sole plaintiff 15 in this action—lacks standing. In that vein, Defendant has moved for the Court to sanction 16 Plaintiff’s counsel for failing to sufficiently investigate Plaintiff’s claims before initiating this 17 action. See Dkt. 77. In its motion for sanctions, Defendant requests that the Court dismiss this 18 action. See id. at 9. Plaintiff, meanwhile, has moved to amend her operative complaint, and the 19 proposed amendments would “substitut[e] her out for two new plaintiffs” who can more easily 20 demonstrate standing. See Dkt. 76 at 2. Both motions remain pending and…