Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled July 25, 2022

Cellwitch Inc. v. Tile, Inc.

Judge
Jeffrey White
Docket
4:19-cv-01315
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Cellwitch Inc. v. Tile, Inc., Judge White granted Tile’s motion to keep discovery stayed while its request to seek reconsideration was resolved.

Who this affects

Cellwitch Inc. and Tile, Inc.; discovery in their case remained paused while Tile’s reconsideration-related request was resolved.

What happened

Cellwitch Inc. v. Tile, Inc. involved Tile’s request to continue pausing discovery in the case.

The court found good cause to keep discovery paused while it considered Tile’s request for permission to seek reconsideration of the court’s November 21, 2019 order denying Tile’s motion to dismiss.

Judge White granted Tile’s motion, so discovery remained stayed while those requests were resolved.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Cellwitch Inc. v. Tile, Inc. · No. 4:19-cv-01315
Judge
Jeffrey White
Date
July 25, 2022

Background

Tile asked the court to maintain the stay of discovery. The stay concerned discovery—the exchange of information and documents between parties—while Tile’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration was resolved. That request concerned the court’s November 21, 2019 order denying Tile’s motion to dismiss.

Court’s Analysis

Based on the submitted papers and the arguments at the hearing, the court found good cause to maintain the discovery stay. The court relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), which permits protective orders concerning discovery, and on its discretion to manage the case.

Ruling

The court granted Tile’s Motion to Maintain Stay as to Discovery. Discovery was stayed pending resolution of Tile’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, including resolution of any reconsideration motion the court authorized Tile to file. The order did not decide the merits of the underlying dispute or reconsider the earlier denial of Tile’s motion to dismiss.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.