Harrington

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 MICHAEL J HARRINGTON, et al., Case No. 23-cv-06296-HSG Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S y MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY Re: Dkt. No. 39 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE

CORPORATION,

Defendant. a

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to stay discovery during the pendency of

14 || Defendant’s prior-filed motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 39. The Court finds this matter appropriate

|| for disposition without oral argument and the matter is deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). Defendant argues that a stay of discovery under Rule 26(c) is appropriate here, and the

= || Court agrees: it finds that because (1) Defendant’s motion to dismiss is “potentially dispositive of

18 || the entire case” on Jurisdictional grounds and (2) “the pending dispositive motion can be decided 19 || absent discovery,” Defendant has established good cause for a stay of discovery. In re Nexus 6p || Prods. Liab. Litig., No.…