DiGiacinto v. RB Health LLC
- Donna Ryu
- 4:22-cv-04690
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In DiGiacinto v. RB Health, Judge Ryu denied RB Health’s motion to stay discovery because its anticipated dismissal motion had not been filed.
The ruling affects RB Health (US) LLC’s request to pause discovery and allows discovery in Joseph DiGiacinto’s proposed class action to proceed.
What happened
Joseph DiGiacinto brought a proposed class action claiming that RB Health (US) LLC used false, misleading, and deceptive marketing and labeling for Children’s Delsym Cough Relief. RB Health had not yet responded to the amended complaint.
RB Health asked the court to pause discovery until it ruled on the motion to dismiss that RB Health expected to file. RB Health argued that the motion could end the case because the complaint identified no misleading statement and DiGiacinto lacked standing. DiGiacinto opposed the request and argued that RB Health had not shown a strong reason to stop discovery.
In DiGiacinto v. RB Health (US) LLC, Judge Donna Ryu denied the motion. The court explained that the motion to dismiss had not been filed, so it could not assess its merits, and that even a dismissal might allow DiGiacinto to amend the complaint, making the motion non-dispositive.
The detailed version
- DiGiacinto v. RB Health LLC · No. 4:22-cv-04690
- Donna Ryu
- Dec. 5, 2022
Background
Joseph DiGiacinto filed a proposed class action against RB Health (US) LLC. His first amended complaint alleges false, misleading, and deceptive marketing practices concerning the marketing and labeling of RB Health’s Children’s Delsym Cough Relief product. RB Health’s response to the first amended complaint, including any motion to dismiss, was due on December 9, 2022.
RB Health moved to stay discovery until after the court resolved its anticipated motion to dismiss. RB Health argued that the anticipated motion would dispose of the entire case because the complaint did not identify a misleading statement and instead amounted to a request to regulate product prices. It also argued that DiGiacinto lacked standing because there was no causal connection to the retailers that sold the products. RB Health further contended that pausing discovery would promote efficiency and prevent undue burden while the case was in its early stages.
DiGiacinto opposed the motion. He argued that RB Health had the burden to make a strong showing supporting a discovery stay and disputed whether the anticipated motion to dismiss was likely to end the case.
Legal standard
The court stated that courts have broad discretion to control discovery. Under the two-part test applied by courts in the Northern District of California, a discovery stay pending a potentially case-ending motion requires: (1) the motion to be potentially dispositive of the entire case, or at least of the issue targeted by discovery; and (2) the motion to be capable of decision without discovery. If either requirement is not established, discovery proceeds.
Ruling
The court denied RB Health’s motion to stay discovery. Because RB Health had not yet filed its motion to dismiss, the court could not assess its merits. The court also noted that even if some or all of DiGiacinto’s claims were deficient, the court would consider whether to allow amendment. That possibility meant the anticipated motion might not dispose of the case. RB Health therefore failed to meet its burden to show that a discovery stay was appropriate.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.