In Pavlovich v. Account Discovery Systems, LLC, 2018 WL 395487, at *1 (S.D.Cal., 2018), Magistrate Crawford denied merits discovery because she already had ruled that class-discovery should proceed first.
This Court issued a prior Order granting plaintiff’s Motion to Compel on November 28, 2017. [Doc. No. 63]. Therein, the Court approved discovery regarding DNF’s financial net worth because it is relevant to an eventual motion for class certification, and took care to note that “discovery at this time should be focused on issues surrounding class certification.” [Id. at p. 4, n. 2]. However, the fact that some information relevant to class certification might also be relevant to the underlying merits is not a basis for a party to refuse engaging in discovery.  Plaintiff requests that this Court compel defendant, DNF, to respond to Requests for Production 1-16 seeking information regarding DNF’s practice of retaining independent law firms to collect on debts it owns. [Doc. No. 65, at pp. 4-17]. Plaintiff contends this information is critical to rebut defendant’s arguments in its Motion for Summary Judgment. [Id. at p. 17]. Plaintiff’s Motion again misconstrues and overstates the appropriate scope of discovery at this time. The Court’s prior Order resolving a discovery dispute explained that plaintiff “overstate[d] the degree to which current discovery efforts can look beyond a motion for class certification.” [Doc. No. 63 at p. 4, n. 2]. Plaintiff fails to explain how the requested information is relevant to class certification, and fails to cite relevant case authority to support his position.1 The Court cannot see any reasonable use of the requested information for purposes of seeking class certification.