`Case No.: 5:22-cv-02499-EJD
`ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
`1
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`United States District Court
`Northern District of California
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`MARY KATHERINE ARCELL, et al.,
`Plaintiffs,
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC, et al.,
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 5:22-cv-02499-EJD
`
`ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
`STAY DISCOVERY PENDING
`RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`Re: Dkt. No. 36
`
`Plaintiffs initiated this antitrust suit on April 22, 2022. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiffs essentially
`allege that Defendants Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) and Google LLC (“Google”) violated federal
`antitrust laws by agreeing not to compete in the internet search business. Id. Defendants’ motion
`to dismiss the Complaint is fully briefed (Dkt. Nos. 25, 32, 35) and was taken under submission on
`October 26, 2022 (Dkt. No. 46).
`Pending before the Court is Defendants’ “Motion for a Protective Order Temporarily
`Staying Discovery” (“Motion”) until the Court issues a ruling on Defendants’ motion to dismiss
`the Complaint. Dkt. Nos. 36 -38. The Motion is suitable for disposition without oral argument
`pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). For the reasons stated below, the Motion will be granted.
`“The district court has wide discretion in controlling discovery.” Little v. City of Seattle,
`863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988); Hall v. Tilton, 2010 WL 539679, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2010)
`(“A district court has broad discretion to stay discovery pending the disposition of a dispositive
`motion.”). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), “[t]he court may, for good cause, issue
`an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden
`or expense[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Many courts in this district apply a two-prong test to
`Case 3:22-cv-02499-RFL Document 47 Filed 10/31/22 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: 5:22-cv-02499-EJD
`ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
`2
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`United States District Court
`Northern District of California
`determine whether a stay of discovery is appropriate: “(1) will the motion dispose of the entire
`case (or at least the issue at which discovery is aimed)? and (2) can the motion be decided without
`further discovery?” Onuoha v. Facebook, Inc., 2017 WL 11681325, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 7,
`2017) (collecting cases).
`Here, both elements favor a stay. First, Defendants’ motion to dismiss may dispose of the
`entire case. Defendants raise numerous significant challenges to the Complaint, including the
`failure to plead direct or circumstantial evidence of a horizontal conspiracy to support the Section
`1 claim; failure to plead a conspiracy, a relevant market, and the requisite intent to support the
`Section 2 claim; failure to plead antitrust standing; statute of limitations; and laches. Defendants
`also argue that some of the forms of relief Plaintiffs seek are unavailable as a matter of law. At a
`minimum, Defendants have established that their motion is “potentially dispositive” of the entire
`case, which weighs in favor of granting a stay of discovery until the Court issues a ruling on
`Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Malley v. San Jose Midtown Dev. LLC, 2020 WL 5877575, at *7
`(N.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2020).
`Second, Defendants’ motion to dismiss can be decided without further discovery because
`the motion “is based solely on the allegations in the Complaint and does not raise any factual
`issues.” Reveal Chat Holdco, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., 2020 WL 2843369, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr.
`10, 2020).
`Further, there is good cause to stay discovery at this time because it will promote
`efficiency and avoid undue burden to Defendants; discovery in antitrust cases tends to be “broad,
`time-consuming and expensive.” In re Netflix Antitrust Litig., 506 F. Supp. 2d 308, 321 (N.D.
`Cal. June 14, 2007) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1967 (2007)).
`Plaintiffs assert that a stay of discovery is not warranted because they are presently seeking only
`“limited” discovery. This “limited discovery” consists of the depositions of Defendants Tim
`Cook, Sundar Pichai, Eric Schmidt, and other Apple and Google executives; interrogatories
`regarding Google’s payments to Apple; and production of any written contracts between Google
`and Apple regarding Google’s payments to Apple. However, “[t]he purpose of F.R.Civ.P.
`Case 3:22-cv-02499-RFL Document 47 Filed 10/31/22 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: 5:22-cv-02499-EJD
`ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
`3
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`United States District Court
`Northern District of California
`12(b)(6) is to enable defendants to challenge the legal sufficiency of complaints without subjecting
`themselves to discovery.” Rutman Wine Co. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, 829 F.2d 729, 738 (9th Cir.
`1987) (citing Greene v. Emersons Ltd., 86 F.R.D. 66, 73 (S.D.N.Y. 1980), aff'd, 736 F.2d 29 (2d
`Cir. 1984)). “In antitrust cases this procedure especially makes sense because the costs of
`discovery in such actions are prohibitive.” Id. (citing Car Carriers v. Ford Motor Company, 745
`F.2d 1101, 1105-07 (7th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1054, 105 S.Ct. 1758, 84 L.Ed.2d 821
`(1985)).
`Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery is GRANTED. Discovery is
`STAYED until the Court issues a ruling on Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`Dated: October 31, 2022
`
`
`EDWARD J. DAVILA
`United States District Judge
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-02499-RFL Document 47 Filed 10/31/22 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`