Bioscience Advisors, Inc. v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:21-cv-00866
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bioscience Advisors v. Securities and Exchange Commission, Judge Gilliam stayed discovery because agency-record and information-request discovery was premature or unwarranted.
Bioscience Advisors and the defendants are affected by the stay: previously served discovery requests need not be answered, and discovery cannot begin unless the court later orders it.
What happened
Bioscience Advisors, Inc. v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission involves three claims under the Administrative Procedure Act and one under the Freedom of Information Act. Bioscience Advisors asked the court to allow discovery.
The court said agency-action cases generally rely on the administrative record, and Bioscience Advisors had not shown exceptional circumstances for additional discovery. It also said discovery was premature because the defendants had not filed the administrative record or supporting affidavits for the information-request claim.
In Bioscience Advisors, Inc. v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. stayed discovery until further order. Previously served discovery requests did not need responses, and any later request to begin discovery would require a particularized showing of good cause after the defendants filed the administrative record and a summary-judgment motion with supporting affidavits.
The detailed version
- Bioscience Advisors, Inc. v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission · No. 4:21-cv-00866
- Haywood Gilliam
- Apr. 7, 2022
Background
Bioscience Advisors requested a scheduling order allowing discovery. The case includes three claims under the Administrative Procedure Act and one claim under the Freedom of Information Act.
Court’s reasoning
For the Administrative Procedure Act claims, the court explained that judicial review of agency action is generally limited to the agency’s administrative record. The court found that Bioscience Advisors had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances supporting discovery outside that record. Discovery was also premature because the defendants had not yet filed the administrative record.
For the Freedom of Information Act claim, the court explained that these claims are typically resolved without discovery, based on agency affidavits describing the search and related procedures. Because the defendants had not yet submitted affidavits or arguments supporting a summary-judgment motion, the court found discovery premature on that claim as well.
Order
The court stayed discovery in the action until further order. Discovery requests that had already been served did not need responses unless and until the court ordered otherwise. The court would not consider a request to begin discovery until the defendants had filed both the administrative record and a summary-judgment motion, including supporting affidavits concerning the Freedom of Information Act claim. At that point, Bioscience Advisors would need to make a particularized showing of good cause under the applicable standards. The order terminated Docket Nos. 47, 48, 49, and 50. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. did not decide the underlying claims in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.