AVX Networks v. California Public Utilities Commission

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
AVX NETWORKS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 26-cv-07172-WHO
ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTE
Re: Dkt. No. 51
The parties raise a dispute over whether discovery should be stayed pending resolution of
defendants’ pending motions to dismiss, set for hearing on December 2, 2026. See Dkt. No. 51.
Defendants argue that a stay is appropriate because the “pending motions to dismiss are potentially
dispositive of the entire case,” and that “no discovery is required because the pending motions to
dismiss only make facial challenges to the [complaint].” Id. at 1–3.
In response, plaintiffs argue that a complete stay would deprive them of information
concerning the “challenged decisions, funding, and Defendants’ respective roles” in this dispute.
Id. at 3. Plaintiffs believe that defendants have not shown that “every claim, every defendant, and
every requested category [in the complaint] will necessarily be eliminated” by the motion to
dismiss. Id. at 4. They point out that at least one defendant, Maria Ellis (“Ellis”), is sued in both
her individual and official capacities, but defendants only raise sovereign immunity challenges in
their motion to dismiss, which is not applicable to an individual officer sued in their personal
capacity. Id. Plaintiffs finally assert that defendants misread my order continuing the parties’
initial case management conference as evidence of my intention to bar discovery pending the
motion to dismiss hearing. Id. at 4–5. They accordingly request that discovery proceed at a
minimum against Ellis in her individual capacity. Id. at 5.
Case 3:26-cv-07172-WHO Document 52 Filed 10/14/26 Page 1 of 3

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
“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket stays of
discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” Reveal Chat Holdco, LLC v.
Facebook, Inc., No. 20-cv-00363-BLF, 2020 WL 2843369, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2020)
(Freeman, J.). Nonetheless, district courts have “wide discretion in controlling discovery.” Little
v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). “A party seeking a stay of discovery carries
the heavy burden of making a ‘strong showing’ why discovery should be denied.” Gray v. First
Winthrop Corp., 133 F.R.D. 39, 40 (N.D. Cal. 1990). “This often occurs where the party seeking
a stay raises jurisdictional or immunity issues.” Calvary Chapel San Jose v. Cody, No. 20-cv-
03794-BLF, 2021 WL 5353883, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2021) (Freeman, J.).
“Courts in this district have applied a two-part test to determine whether to stay discovery
pending the resolution of a dispositive motion.” Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. MediaTek, Inc.,
732 F. Supp. 3d 1101, 1117 (N.D. Cal. 2024) (Pitts, J.) (collecting cases). “First, a pending
motion must be potentially dispositive of the entire case, or at least dispositive on the issue at
which discovery is directed. Second, the court must determine whether the pending motion can be
decided absent additional discovery. If the Court answers these two questions in the affirmative, a
protective order may issue. However, if either prong of this test is not established, discovery
proceeds. In applying this two-factor test, the court must take a preliminary peek at the merits of
the pending motion to assess whether a stay is warranted.” Reveal Chat Holdco, 2020 WL
2843369, at *2 (cleaned up).
Defendants’ pending motions to dismiss raise numerous “potentially dispositive” issues,
including of ripeness and exhaustion, lack of federal question jurisdiction, sovereign immunity
under the Eleventh Amendment, lack of standing, and failure to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. See Dkt. Nos. 32, 49; Reveal Chat Holdco, 2020 WL 2843369, at *2. I stated in denying
plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order that defendants raised “serious doubts about
my jurisdiction over this dispute.” See Dkt. No. 41 at 2. So too with exhaustion. Id. While
plaintiffs maintain that Ellis, by virtue of being sued in her individual capacity, is not implicated
by defendants’ motions to dismiss, defendants challenged each claim on exhaustion grounds,
which would implicate Ellis as well. See Dkt. No. 32 at 7–10. Moreover, defendants expressly
Case 3:26-cv-07172-WHO Document 52 Filed 10/14/26 Page 2 of 3

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
challenged the Fifth Cause of Action—asserting violations of Section 1983 against Ellis in her
individual capacity—as inadequately pleaded, arguing that the complaint does not show any
plausible procedural due process violations. Id. at 17–19. These facts, taken together, show the
first factor is met. It is also unclear to me how the case against Ellis could proceed if all the other
defendants (and Ellis in her official capacity) are dismissed.
The motions to dismiss may be decided absent additional discovery. See Reveal Chat
Holdco, 2020 WL 2843369, at *2. As defendants note, each motion presents facial challenges to
the complaint. Dkt. No. 51 at 1–2.
Only because I have previewed at least some of the issues to be raised in the motions to
dismiss and the motions appear likely to be dispositive, in large part if not in whole, a stay of
discovery is warranted. Accordingly, discovery in this matter is STAYED pending the resolution
of the defendants’ pending motions to dismiss.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 14, 2026
William H. Orrick
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-07172-WHO Document 52 Filed 10/14/26 Page 3 of 3