Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Centurylink Sales Practices And Securities Litigation

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

May 8, 2018

IN RE CENTURYLINK SALES PRACTICES AND SECURITIES LITIGATION This Document Relates to Civil File Nos. 17-2832, 17-4613, 17-4614, 17-4615, 17-4616, 17-4617, 17-4618, 17-4619, 17-4622, 17-4943, 17-4944, 17-4945, 17-4947, 17-5001, 17-5046

          Carolyn G. Anderson, Brian C. Gudmundson, Bryce D. Riddle, and Hart L. Robinovitch, Zimmerman Reed LLP, Plaintiffs' Interim Co- Lead and Liaison Counsel; Mark M. O'Mara, Alyssa J. Flood, Channa Lloyd, and Caitlin Frenkel, O'Mara Law Group, and Mark J. Geragos, Benjamin J. Meiselas, and Lori G. Feldman, Geragos & Geragos, APC, Plaintiffs' Interim Co-Lead Counsel; Daniel C. Hedlund and Michelle J. Looby, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Richard M. Hagstrom, Anne T. Regan, Nicholas S. Kuhlmann, and Jason Raether, Hellmuth & Johnson, PLLC, Roxanne Barton Conlin, Roxanne Conlin & Associates, PC, and Francois M. Blaudeau, W. Lewis Garrison, Jr., Christopher B. Hood, and James F. McDonough, III, Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC, Plaintiffs' Executive Committee; and T. Ryan Langley, Hodge & Langley Law Firm, P.C., Michael Fuller, Olsen Daines PC, Brandon C. Fernald, Fernald Law Group LLP, Bonner C. Walsh, Walsh PLLC, Alfred M. Sanchez, and Orin Kurtz, Gardy & Notis, LLP, Additional Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class.

          Douglas P. Lobel, David A. Vogel, Martin S. Schenker, and Jeffrey M. Gutkin, Cooley LLP, and William A. McNab and David M. Aafedt, Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A., Counsel for Defendant CenturyLink, Inc.

          MEMORANDUM OF LAW & ORDER

          Michael J. Davis United States District Judge

         I. INTRODUCTION

         This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Temporarily Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Forthcoming Motion to Compel Arbitration and Enforce Class-Action Waivers. (MDL [Docket No. 87].) The Court heard oral argument on May 2, 2018. For good cause shown, the Court grants the motion.

         II. BACKGROUND

         On April 28, 2018, Defendant CenturyLink, Inc. (“CenturyLink”) filed Defendant and Proposed Intervenors' Motion to Compel Arbitration and Enforce Class-Action Waivers (MDL [Docket No. 122]), in which it claims that 37 of the 38 named Plaintiffs agreed to arbitration and class-action waiver clauses in their service contracts such that their claims against CenturyLink in this case are subject to mandatory individual arbitration. It further claims that the thirty-eighth Plaintiff, Michael Maguire, agreed solely to a class-action waiver.

         Plaintiffs have taken the position that class-wide discovery on the merits should begin immediately. According to Defendant, such discovery will implicate more than 5.5 million customers. (Beard Decl. ¶ 4.) Defendant asks that the Court stay discovery until it has ruled on the Motion to Compel Arbitration.

         III. DISCUSSION

         A. Legal Standard

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) provides that “a court may stay discovery for good cause shown. However, it, of course, is black letter law that the mere filing of a motion to dismiss the complaint does not constitute ‘good cause' for the issuance of a discovery stay.” TE Connectivity Networks, Inc. v. All Sys. Broadband, Inc., No. CIV. 13-1356 (ADM/FLN), 2013 WL 4487505, at *2 (D. Minn. Aug. 20, 2013) (citations omitted). “Courts use a balancing test to determine whether good cause exists, weighing the moving party's potential burden against the opposing party's interest in the discovery at issue.” Wells Fargo Ins. Servs. USA, Inc. v. Kyle King & Sherman Ins. Agency, Inc., No. 15-CV-4378 (PJS/HB), 2016 WL 6892108, at *3 (D. Minn. July 29, 2016).

Regarding whether good cause exists to stay litigation pending proceedings in another forum, courts in this district consider, among other things, whether a stay would unduly prejudice or give a clear tactical advantage to one party, whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and the trial of the case, and whether discovery is complete and a trial date has been set.

Id. “It may often make sense for discovery to continue while a federal court considers whether a case that will probably be litigated no matter what will proceed before it or in some other court, but courts have regularly stayed discovery while the court considers whether a case must instead proceed in arbitration.” Id. at *4 (gathering cases). When a pending motion to dismiss would dispose of all or substantially all of the case, it “appears to have substantial grounds, ” and is “not unfounded in the law, ” courts have stayed discovery during the pendency of the motion. Anti-Monopoly, Inc. v. Hasbro, Inc., No. 94CIV. 2120 (LMM)(AJP), 1996 WL 101277, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 1996).

         B. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.