Eli Reisman v. Gen Digital Incorporated

1 WO — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA — 8 — Eli Rei sman, ) No. CV-25-01653-PHX-SPL ) — 9 — ) 10 Plaintiff, ) ORDER vs. ) ) — 11 — ) Gen Digital Incorporated, ) — 12 — ) 13 Defendant. ) ) 14 ) 15 There are two Motions pending before the Court: Defendant Gen Digital Inc.’s 16 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 49) and Motion to Stay Discovery Pending 17 Ruling on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (Doc. 51). This Order addresses 18 Defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery. The Court rules as follows. 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 On February 18, 2025, Plaintiff Eli Reisman initiated this putative class action 21 against Defendant Gen Digital Inc. in the District of New Jersey alleging violations of the 22 Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227 , et seq. (Doc. 1). The 23 parties stipulated to transfer this matter to the District of Arizona. (Docs. 24, 25). On June 24 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (Doc. 35). Shortly thereafter, 25 Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the FAC, arguing that the allegations were 26 “insufficient to plausibly plead the existence of an agency relationship between 27 [Defendant] and the third-party senders of the alleged text messages.” (Doc. 39 at 6). The 28 Court denied Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 43). Defendant filed an Answer (Doc. 1 44) and later filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, asserting that text messages are 2 not “calls” within the meaning of the TCPA. (Doc. 49). Along with the Motion for 3 Judgment on the Pleadings, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Stay Discovery pending 4 the Court’s resolution of that Motion. (Doc. 51). 5 II. LEGAL STANDARD 6 District courts have “wide discretion in controlling discovery.” Little v. City of 7 Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). Discovery may be stayed pending rulings on 8 dispositive or potentially dispositive motions. See Lazar v. Charles Schwab & Co. Inc., 9 No. CV-14-01511-PHX-DLR, 2014 WL 12551210 , at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 19, 2014). 10 However, “[a] pending dispositive motion is not generally a situation that in an of itself 11 would warrant a stay of discovery.” DRK Photo v. McGraw-Hill Cos., Inc., No. CV 1212 8093-PCT-PGR, 2012 WL 5936681 , at *1 (D. Ariz. Nov. 27, 2012) (internal quotations 13 and citation omitted). Courts may stay discovery for many reasons, including furthering 14 efficiency for itself and the litigants. Little, 863 F.2d at 685 . Many courts in the Ninth 15 Circuit consider the following in determining whether to stay discovery pending the 16 resolution of a motion: 17 1) the pending dispositive motion must be potentially dispositive of the entire case; 2) the court must either be 18 “convinced” that the dispositive motion will be granted, or the court must find that a “clear possibility” exists that the 19 dispositive motion will be granted; and 3) the court must be able to resolve the dispositive motion without any additional 20 discovery. 21 Cebrynski v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, No. CV-21-01965-PHX-DJH, 2022 WL 2290561 , at 22 *1 (D. Ariz. June 24, 2022); see, e.g., Contractor Mgmt. Servs. LLC v. Para Inc., No. CV23 25-01645-PHX-DWL, 2025 WL 2531538 , at *2–3 (D. Ariz. Sept. 2, 2025). 24 III. DISCUSSION 25 Defendant argues that the Court should stay discovery because the case is at an early 26 stage, and at the time Defendant filed the Motion to Stay, discovery had not yet begun. 27 (Doc. 51 at 5). Further, Defendant argues that the pending Motion for Judgment on the 28 Pleadings focuses on “a single legal issue that could potentially dispose of this entire case.” (Cd. at 6). In the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Defendant argues that the private 2.) right of action created in the TCPA in section 227(c)(5) does not apply to text messages, and because Plaintiff's claims are based on receipt of text messages, those claims fail. (/d. 4} at 3). In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that delaying discovery would be prejudicial because Defendant’s affiliates, and those affiliates’ vendors, “have discovery that is critical to Plaintiffs case” and there are no assurances that those entities will preserve evidence or are on notice of the lawsuit.! (Doc. 54 at 6). 8 In light of these considerations, the Court will deny the Motion to Stay discovery. Defendant has not shown a “clear possibility” that the Motion for Judgment on the 10 | Pleadings will be granted. See Cebrynski, 2022 WL 2290561 , at *2 (“Having taken this 11| ‘peek’ at the merits of the motions, the Court concludes that Defendants have not 12 | demonstrated a clear and immediate possibility of success on their... argument.”). At this point, the Court is not “convinced” that Defendant’s arguments based on the Supreme Court’s decision in McLaughlin Chiropractic Assocs., Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 606 U.S. 146 (2025) will result in the dismissal of Plaintiff's claims. See id. Further, efficiency and 16 | judicial economy will be best served by the parties’ participation in the discovery process. Therefore, the Court will deny the Motion to Stay. An Order on the pending Motion for 18 | Judgment on the Pleadings will issue in due course. 19 Accordingly, 20 IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Ruling on 21 | Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 51) is denied. 22 Dated this 7th day of January, 2026. 23 - 24 GES — 25 — — 26 — 1 Plaintiff also notes in the Response that “Defendant has informed Plaintiff that it 28 has issued instructions to suspected responsible parties to preserve records.” (Doc. 54 at 6). Thus, it appears that efforts to preserve evidence have been undertaken.