Pearl v. Coinbase Global, Inc.
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:22-cv-03561
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Pearl v. Coinbase Global, Inc., Judge Chesney granted Coinbase’s motion to stay discovery pending resolution of its dismissal and class-allegation motions.
The order pauses discovery for the plaintiffs and Coinbase Global, Inc. and Coinbase, Inc. while Coinbase’s motion to dismiss and motion to strike class allegations remain pending.
What happened
In Pearl v. Coinbase Global, Inc., Coinbase Global, Inc. and Coinbase, Inc. asked the court to pause discovery while their motion to dismiss and motion to strike class allegations were pending. Larry Pearl opposed the request.
The court applied a two-part test: the pending motions had to potentially resolve the case or the issue involved in discovery, and the motions had to be capable of being decided without discovery. The court found that Pearl did not dispute that the motions could be potentially decisive and had not identified discovery needed to respond meaningfully.
Judge Chesney also took a preliminary look at the pending motions and found that Coinbase had shown enough to justify pausing discovery. The court granted the motion to stay discovery and vacated the scheduled hearing.
The detailed version
- Pearl v. Coinbase Global, Inc. · No. 3:22-cv-03561
- Maxine Chesney
- June 17, 2024
Background
Defendants Coinbase Global, Inc. and Coinbase, Inc., referred to collectively as “Coinbase,” moved on May 22, 2024, to stay discovery pending resolution of their motion to dismiss and motion to strike class allegations. Plaintiff Larry Pearl opposed the motion, and Coinbase filed a reply. The court decided the matter based on the written submissions and vacated the hearing scheduled for July 12, 2024.
Legal standard
The court explained that district courts have broad discretion to control discovery. It applied a two-part test used in the Northern District of California for deciding whether to pause discovery while a dispositive motion is pending. A dispositive motion is one that could resolve the entire case, or at least the issue for which discovery is sought. The court must also determine whether the motion can be decided without discovery.
Court’s analysis
Pearl disputed Coinbase’s assessment of the strength of the motion to dismiss and motion to strike. But he did not dispute that those motions were potentially dispositive, and he did not identify particular discovery needed to respond meaningfully to them. After taking a preliminary look at the motions, the court found that Coinbase had made a sufficient showing to obtain the requested protection. The court noted that the burden of discovery was not part of the test it applied.
Disposition
The court granted Coinbase’s motion to stay discovery. The order did not decide the pending motion to dismiss or motion to strike class allegations.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.