Reisman v. Gen Digital Incorporated

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
There are two Motions pending before the Court: Defendant Gen Digital Inc.’s
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 49) and Motion to Stay Discovery Pending
Ruling on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (Doc. 51). This Order addresses
Defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery. The Court rules as follows.
I. BACKGROUND
On February 18, 2025, Plaintiff Eli Reisman initiated this putative class action
against Defendant Gen Digital Inc. in the District of New Jersey alleging violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq. (Doc. 1). The
parties stipulated to transfer this matter to the District of Arizona. (Docs. 24, 25). On June
27, 2025, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (Doc. 35). Shortly thereafter,
Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the FAC, arguing that the allegations were
“insufficient to plausibly plead the existence of an agency relationship between
[Defendant] and the third-party senders of the alleged text messages.” (Doc. 39 at 6). The
Court denied Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 43). Defendant filed an Answer (Doc.
Eli Reisman,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Gen Digital Incorporated,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV-25-01653-PHX-SPL
ORDER
Case 2:25-cv-01653-SPL Document 59 Filed 01/08/26 Page 1 of 3

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
44) and later filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, asserting that text messages are
not “calls” within the meaning of the TCPA. (Doc. 49). Along with the Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Stay Discovery pending
the Court’s resolution of that Motion. (Doc. 51).
II. LEGAL STANDARD
District courts have “wide discretion in controlling discovery.” Little v. City of
Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). Discovery may be stayed pending rulings on
dispositive or potentially dispositive motions. See Lazar v. Charles Schwab & Co. Inc.,
No. CV-14-01511-PHX-DLR, 2014 WL 12551210, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 19, 2014).
However, “[a] pending dispositive motion is not generally a situation that in an of itself
would warrant a stay of discovery.” DRK Photo v. McGraw-Hill Cos., Inc., No. CV 12-
8093-PCT-PGR, 2012 WL 5936681, at *1 (D. Ariz. Nov. 27, 2012) (internal quotations
and citation omitted). Courts may stay discovery for many reasons, including furthering
efficiency for itself and the litigants. Little, 863 F.2d at 685. Many courts in the Ninth
Circuit consider the following in determining whether to stay discovery pending the
resolution of a motion:
1) the pending dispositive motion must be potentially
dispositive of the entire case; 2) the court must either be
“convinced” that the dispositive motion will be granted, or the
court must find that a “clear possibility” exists that the
dispositive motion will be granted; and 3) the court must be
able to resolve the dispositive motion without any additional
discovery.
Cebrynski v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, No. CV-21-01965-PHX-DJH, 2022 WL 2290561, at
*1 (D. Ariz. June 24, 2022); see, e.g., Contractor Mgmt. Servs. LLC v. Para Inc., No. CV-
25-01645-PHX-DWL, 2025 WL 2531538, at *2–3 (D. Ariz. Sept. 2, 2025).
III. DISCUSSION
Defendant argues that the Court should stay discovery because the case is at an early
stage, and at the time Defendant filed the Motion to Stay, discovery had not yet begun.
(Doc. 51 at 5). Further, Defendant argues that the pending Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings focuses on “a single legal issue that could potentially dispose of this entire case.”
Case 2:25-cv-01653-SPL Document 59 Filed 01/08/26 Page 2 of 3

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(Id. at 6). In the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Defendant argues that the private
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. (Id.
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
Plaintiff’s case” and there are no assurances that those entities will preserve evidence or
are on notice of the lawsuit.1 (Doc. 54 at 6).
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
Pleadings will be granted. See Cebrynski, 2022 WL 2290561, at *2 (“Having taken this
‘peek’ at the merits of the motions, the Court concludes that Defendants have not
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
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
Judgment on the Pleadings will issue in due course.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Ruling on
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 51) is denied.
Dated this 7th day of January, 2026.
Honorable Steven P. Logan
United States District Judge
1 Plaintiff also notes in the Response that “Defendant has informed Plaintiff that it
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.
Case 2:25-cv-01653-SPL Document 59 Filed 01/08/26 Page 3 of 3