Udeen v. Subaru of Am., Inc., 378 F. Supp. 3d 330

Plaintiffs filed a putative nationwide class action alleging Subaru sold/leased vehicles with a defective Starlink infotainment system that poses a safety hazard.
Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint; briefing completed and decision pending. Defendants concede some California express-warranty claims would survive even if the motion is granted entirely.
Defendants requested a complete stay of discovery while the motion to dismiss is decided; plaintiffs opposed. The Court held briefing and oral argument on the stay request.
The Court applied the standard factors for a discovery stay (prejudice to non-moving party, hardship to moving party, simplification of issues, and status of discovery/trial date).
The Court concluded a complete stay would unduly prejudice plaintiffs and risk loss of evidence, but recognized defendants’ concerns about burden and therefore limited discovery to core, focused topics.
The Court ordered a limited discovery schedule (document productions and disclosures by specified dates), stayed substantive depositions absent good cause, and left other discovery disputes for a conference; it declined to rule on the merits of the motion to dismiss.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether discovery should be completely stayed pending motion to dismiss	A stay would unduly prejudice plaintiffs, delay resolution, risk loss of evidence, and impede claims alleging safety hazards	A stay is appropriate to avoid costly, burdensome discovery while threshold legal issues are resolved	Denied complete stay; limited, focused discovery permitted
Prejudice from proceeding with discovery	Delay would prejudice plaintiffs and risk loss of evidence and fading memories, especially given alleged safety issues	Defendants said proceeding imposes undue expense and burden	Court found prejudice to plaintiffs greater and burden manageable with narrow scope and active case management
Hardship to defendants from permitting limited discovery	Plaintiffs: early focused discovery is reasonable and inevitable even if some claims later dismissed	Defendants: discovery would be "extremely expensive" and unnecessary if motion succeeds	Court found hardship not sufficient to justify total stay; limited discovery tailored to core issues will minimize burden
Scope and timing of permitted discovery	Plaintiffs sought relevant documents (including some foreign materials) and third-party discovery to develop the case	Defendants sought to restrict discovery until threshold issues resolved	Court ordered narrow, core document productions, Rule 26 disclosures, meet-and-confer on contested requests, stayed substantive depositions absent good cause

Gerald Chalames Corp. v. OKI Data Americas, Inc., 247 F.R.D. 453 (D.N.J. 2007) (filing a motion to dismiss does not automatically stay discovery and stay factors should be applied)
Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) (delay risks loss of evidence and witness memory, creating prejudice)
New York v. Hill, 528 U.S. 110 (2000) (delay can reduce accuracy of fact-finding by causing witness unavailability and fading memories)