IN RE PLAID INC. PRIVACY LITIGATION

Background

Plaid filed an administrative motion asking to continue the October 7, 2020 initial case-management conference until after the court resolved its pending motion to dismiss. The court explained that, despite the motion’s title, Plaid was actually seeking to postpone the parties’ required Rule 26(f) conference and stay discovery. Plaintiffs opposed the request, arguing that Plaid had not made the strong showing required to justify stopping discovery.

Court’s analysis

The court described the two-part test used in the Northern District of California for staying discovery while a potentially case-ending motion is pending. The pending motion must be potentially dispositive, and the court must determine whether it can decide that motion without discovery. Applying the test requires a preliminary review of the motion’s merits.

Here, Plaid’s motion to dismiss was not fully briefed, so the court could not assess its merits. The court also noted that even if some or all of plaintiffs’ claims were deficient, it would consider whether plaintiffs should receive permission to amend. That possibility could make the motion to dismiss non-dispositive.

Ruling

The court held that Plaid had not met its burden to show that a discovery stay was appropriate. It therefore denied Plaid’s motion to continue the case-management conference and stay discovery. This order did not decide Plaid’s pending motion to dismiss or the merits of plaintiffs’ claims.