Rueckl v. InMode, Ltd.
2:19-cv-02186
| D. Nev. | May 28, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Dr. F. Victor Rueckl sued InMode, Ltd.; InMode moved to dismiss (Docket No. 10) and separately moved to stay discovery pending resolution of that motion (Docket No. 30).
- Rueckl opposed the stay; InMode replied. The magistrate resolved the motion without a hearing and granted the stay.
- The court applied the district precedent requiring a three-part analysis for a discovery stay: (1) potentially dispositive pending motion; (2) can be decided without additional discovery; (3) a “preliminary peek” shows sufficient merit.
- The motion to dismiss challenges personal jurisdiction, which weighs strongly in favor of staying discovery or limiting jurisdictional discovery.
- The court concluded jurisdictional discovery is not available as a matter of course and that the motion to dismiss was sufficiently likely to succeed to justify a stay.
- The stay is granted; if the motion to dismiss does not dispose of the case, the parties must file a proposed discovery plan within 14 days of that order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discovery should be stayed pending resolution of the motion to dismiss | Opposed a stay; urged discovery proceed (including jurisdictional discovery) | Stay warranted because motion to dismiss is potentially case-dispositive and can be resolved without discovery | Stay GRANTED |
| Whether jurisdictional discovery should proceed now | Requests discovery to test jurisdiction | Jurisdictional discovery is not automatic and should be deferred to the district judge; stay prevents piecemeal burdens | Court declined to permit jurisdictional discovery as a matter of course; stay remains in place |
| Whether the motion to dismiss is sufficiently meritorious to justify a stay (preliminary peek) | Argued motion lacks merit and discovery needed to resolve issues | Argued motion likely to succeed; preliminary peek supports stay | Court’s preliminary peek found the motion sufficiently likely to succeed to warrant a stay |
| Procedure if motion to dismiss is denied or not dispositive | Not addressed in detail by Rueckl | Proposed discovery plan can be required if case continues | If case survives dismissal, parties must file a proposed discovery plan within 14 days |
Key Cases Cited
- Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681 (9th Cir. 1988) (district courts have broad discretion to control discovery)
- Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597 (D. Nev. 2011) (no automatic or blanket stays of discovery for potentially dispositive motions)
- Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579 (D. Nev. 2013) (articulates three-part test for staying discovery pending dispositive motions)
- Terracom v. Valley Nat’l Bank, 49 F.3d 555 (9th Cir. 1995) (jurisdictional discovery is not available as a matter of course)
- Transure, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan, Inc., 766 F.2d 1297 (9th Cir. 1985) (personal jurisdiction analysis relevant to distinct corporate entities)