HydroChem, LLC v. Keating, 6:17-cv-01281

Hydrochem sued Keating, Evergreen, and ISA alleging Keating solicited Hydrochem employees and misappropriated confidential/trade secret information after leaving Hydrochem.
Hydrochem filed motions for a temporary restraining order (TRO), preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction and simultaneously moved ex parte for expedited discovery to support those motions.
Hydrochem sought two limited depositions (Keating and a corporate representative of Evergreen and/or ISA) and up to ten requests for production focused on Keating’s employment, communications with former Hydrochem employees, and alleged downloading/misappropriation of Hydrochem’s information.
Hydrochem filed the expedited discovery motion five days after filing the complaint and before serving defendants or conferring under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f).
The court found the proposed expedited discovery overly broad, lacking specific topics for any Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, and potentially unduly burdensome, especially given the ex parte filing and defendants’ lack of notice or appearance.
A TRO had already been entered, reducing urgency for broad early discovery; the court denied expedited discovery without prejudice but invited a narrowly tailored, noticed motion with specific requests.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether expedited discovery should be allowed before Rule 26(f) conference	Hydrochem: needed to gather facts to support TRO and preliminary injunction (depositions and documents about Keating’s conduct)	Implicit: defendants would be prejudiced by ex parte, broad discovery before notice/response	Denied: no good cause shown; requests overly broad and unduly burdensome
Whether scope of requested discovery is appropriately narrow	Hydrochem: requests are limited to employment, solicitations, and alleged misappropriation	Implicit: scope is broad (includes unidentified Rule 30(b)(6) topics) and ventures into merits	Denied: requests not narrowly tailored to preliminary injunctive issues
Whether emergency justification exists given existing TRO	Hydrochem: expedited discovery still necessary to prevent irreparable harm and preserve status quo	Implicit: TRO lessens immediate need; discovery not necessary for service or evidence-preservation	Denied: presence of TRO minimizes urgency for broad discovery
Whether ex parte, pre-service discovery is permissible here	Hydrochem: sought ex parte relief before service	Defendants: lack of service/notice and counsel appearance makes compliance burdensome	Denied: ex parte cure inappropriate absent narrowly tailored, service-focused need; court allowed refiled, noticed, narrow motion

No officially reported authorities with reporter citations were relied upon in the opinion; the court primarily cited unpublished or Westlaw opinions and local precedent applying the good-cause/reasonableness test for expedited discovery.