Automated Summary
Key Facts
Plaintiff Jose Escobedo, alleging disability with limited walking ability, filed an ADA suit against El Rinconcito Mexican Grill for barriers including lack of accessible parking and uneven paths. Defendant Flipside Christian Church (property owner/landlord) filed a Motion to Stay Discovery pending dismissal on mootness and Article III standing grounds. The Court denied the stay and granted Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Site Inspection, ordering inspection to occur within ten days of the Order. Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions was denied without prejudice due to lack of specific argument in the Joint Statement.
Issues
- Whether to grant Defendant Flipside's Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Determination of Plaintiff's Standing and Subject Matter Jurisdiction, specifically regarding the propriety of staying a site inspection of the Subject Property while the motion to dismiss is pending resolution.
- Whether to grant Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions for attorney's fees incurred, in the absence of any specific argument directed to the sanctions issue in the Joint Statement filed pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 251.
- Whether to compel Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Site Inspection of the Subject Property (El Rinconcito Mexican Grill) despite Defendant's pending motion to dismiss on mootness and Article III standing grounds, including whether discovery should proceed given the pending motion to dismiss.
Holdings
The court denies Defendant Flipside's motion to stay discovery pending determination of standing and subject matter jurisdiction, lifts the previously entered stay, grants Plaintiff's motion to compel site inspection of the Subject Property, and denies without prejudice Plaintiff's motion for sanctions. The court finds that Defendant Flipside has not met its burden of showing that the site inspection should not proceed.
Remedies
- The Court lifted the previously entered stay of discovery (Doc. 27) that had been granted on April 29, 2025, which had prevented Plaintiff from conducting a site inspection of the Subject Property. The stay was lifted as Defendant Flipside has not met its burden of showing that the inspection should not proceed.
- The Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Doc. 38) for a site inspection of the Subject Property, ordering the parties to meet and confer and identify a mutually agreeable date and time for conducting the inspection to occur within ten days of this Order. Plaintiff shall re-notice the inspection and serve same on all defendants, including Defendant El Rinconcito Mexican Grill, LLC which is in default. The previously entered stay of discovery (Doc. 27) is lifted, allowing discovery to proceed.
- The Court denied Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 38) without prejudice because the parties did not include any discussion of such sanctions in the Joint Statement filed pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 251.
- The hearing set for July 16, 2025, is vacated by the Court as the matter is suitable for decision without oral argument under E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(g).
- The Court denied Defendant Flipside Christian Church's Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Determination of Plaintiff's Standing and Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 36) because the motion to dismiss cannot be decided absent Plaintiff having an opportunity to conduct a site inspection of the Subject Property.
Legal Principles
- Participation in a Rule 26(f) conference is a prerequisite to conducting general discovery. Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense. The court considers propriety of stay of site inspection when a motion to dismiss is pending.
- The party opposing a motion to compel discovery has the burden of showing that discovery should not be allowed. Courts may exercise wide discretion in controlling discovery, but Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket stays of discovery in the face of potentially dispositive motions.
- Two-part test for staying discovery pending dispositive motion: (1) the pending motion must be potentially dispositive of the entire case or at least dispositive on the issue at which discovery is aimed, and (2) the court must determine whether the pending motion can be decided absent additional discovery. A stay is particularly inappropriate if it would preclude either party from fully preparing for the pending dispositive motion.
Precedent Name
- U.S. ex rel. Englund v. Los Angeles Cty.
- Church of Scientology of San Francisco v. Internal Revenue Service
- Mlejnecky v. Olympus Imaging America, Inc.
- Louisiana Pac. Corp. v. Money Mkt. Institutional Inv. Dealer
- Patriot Rail Corp. v. Sierra R.R. Co.
- Little v. City of Seattle
- Calvary Chapel San Jose v. Cody
Cited Statute
- Rule 26(d)(1) requires Rule 26(f) conference before discovery
- Parties may obtain discovery regarding nonprivileged relevant matter
- No discovery may be sought without Rule 26(f) conference
Judge Name
Sheila K. Oberto
Passage Text
- First, the pending motion 'must be potentially dispositive of the entire case, or at least dispositive on the issue at which discovery is aimed.' Mlejnecky v. Olympus Imaging America, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-02630, 2011 WL 489743, at *6. Second, 'the court must determine whether the pending, potentially dispositive motion can be decided absent additional discovery.' Mlejnecky, 2011 WL 489743, at *6.
- Because Defendant Flipside's motion to dismiss cannot be decided absent Plaintiff having an opportunity to conduct a site inspection of the Subject Property (both internal and external), such discovery should proceed.
- For the reasons set forth above, Defendant Flipside Christian Church's Motion to Stay (Doc. 36) is DENIED (and the previously entered stay (Doc. 27) is LIFTED); Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Doc. 38) is GRANTED; and the Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 38) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.