The ruling came in a proposed class action filed by plaintiffs E.H. and V.P. against Lifelong Adoptions, Inc., an adoption services company. The parties had jointly requested that all pending deadlines be stayed until the court rules on Lifelong's motion to dismiss, arguing that any proposed case schedule would likely need adjustment based on that ruling's outcome.
Judge Singer agreed to continue the April 15, 2026 scheduling conference by six months to October 7, 2026, but rejected the broader stay request. As Singer explained, 'The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.' The judge cited established Eastern District of California precedent noting that district courts 'do not favor blanket stays of discovery because delaying or prolonging discovery can create unnecessary litigation expenses and case management problems.'
The court found the stay request premature, emphasizing that 'no scheduling order has been issued in this action and the parties are not subject to impending discovery deadlines.' Singer wrote that 'any stay of the action would be premature at this time,' referencing a January 2025 ruling in White v. Capital One that declined a similar motion when Rule 26(f) conferences had not yet been held.
The case appears to be in its early stages, with the scheduling conference originally set for April 15, 2026, before Magistrate Judge Singer. The parties will now need to file a joint scheduling report seven days before the rescheduled October conference and will participate remotely by telephone.
Lifelong Adoptions had argued through the joint motion that proposed deadlines would likely require re-adjustment based on whether its motion to dismiss succeeds. The company's dismissal motion remains pending before the court, but Singer's ruling means discovery planning will proceed on a parallel track rather than being held in abeyance.
In a footnote, Singer acknowledged the Eastern District of California's traditional two-part test for evaluating discovery stays pending dispositive motions, established in Mlejnecky v. Olympus Imaging America Inc. That test requires the pending motion to be potentially dispositive of the entire case and capable of resolution without additional discovery. However, Singer noted the parties had not argued the stay was warranted under this framework.
The judge indicated flexibility for future scheduling adjustments, writing that the court 'is amenable to further continuances of the scheduling conference or other case deadlines as judicial economy requires.' The ruling suggests the court will monitor the motion to dismiss timeline and may adjust the case schedule accordingly if the dismissal motion remains unresolved by October.