The opinion
1
2
3
4
5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8 AMARAL DAIRY FARMS, et al., CASE NO. 1:25-cv-01596-KES-FJS
9 Plaintiffs,
ORDER CONTINUING SCHEDULING
10 v. CONFERENCE AND DENYING STAY OF
DISCOVERY
11 CHARLES AHLEM, et al.,
(ECF No. 60)
12 Defendants.
13
14
15 Having considered the parties’ stipulation (ECF No. 60), requesting that the current scheduling
16 conference be continued and staying discovery pending the parties’ motions to dismiss, and good cause
17 appearing, the court ORDERS:
18 1. The parties’ request (ECF No. 60) is GRANTED in part to continue the scheduling
19 conference pursuant to the court’s calendar and DENIED without prejudice as to the parties’ request to
20 stay discovery. There are currently no discovery deadlines for the court to stay and courts look
21 unfavorably on blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending. Mlejnecky v.
22 Olympus Imaging Am., Inc., No. 10-CV-02630, 2011 WL 489743, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2011). Given
23 the current absence of discovery deadlines, the parties do not need the court’s permission to defer
24 discovery at this time.
25 2. The scheduling conference currently set for August 11, 2026, is CONTINUED to
26 November 24, 2026, at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (FJS) before Magistrate Judge Frank J. Singer;
27 3. The parties shall file their updated joint scheduling report seven (7) days before the
28 rescheduled conference; and
] 4. The parties shall appear at the conference remotely by telephone. The parties will be
2 || provided with the telephonic conference information by the courtroom deputy prior to the conference.
3 || The conference number and password are confidential and are not to be shared.
4
5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Nyy 2 7
Dated: _ July 31, 2026
, UNITED STATESMAGISTRA TE JUDGE
8
9
10
1]
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28