St. Louis Group, Inc. v. Metals & Additives Corp.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55845
| S.D. Tex. | 2011Background
- Defendants move for leave to conduct expedited depositions under Rule 26(d)(1).
- Plaintiff is St. Louis Group, Inc., owner of the CharFlam mark, in the business of fire retardant chemicals.
- SLG-LLC is licensee; Dagoberto Hornedo is SLG-LLC's president; Hornedo previously employed by MAC and PAG.
- MAC and PAG sued in Indiana; they alleged Hornedo breached fiduciary duties and misappropriated trade secrets.
- MAC/PAG sought to join Plaintiff in the Indiana action; Plaintiff filed this declaratory judgment action in this Court first.
- Court considers whether to authorize expedited discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference; 26(f) conference deadline set for May 2, 2011.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether good cause exists to authorize expedited discovery | St. Louis Group argues no good cause shown for expedited discovery | Defendants argue there is a discrepancy, motive to defeat Indiana suit, and need for speedy info | Denied; no good cause shown |
| Whether the requested depositions are narrowly tailored | Plaintiff contends requests are not properly framed against the witnesses | Defendants contend deposition of Plaintiff and Rodriguez is necessary for clarity | Denied due to lack of narrowly tailored scope |
| Whether expedited discovery would materially aid dispute resolution | Plaintiff contends expedited discovery not necessary to proceed | Defendants claim expedited discovery would speed potential summary judgment | Denied; speed alone not sufficient for good cause |
| Whether the presence of a related foreign-litigation forum affects the decision | Not applicable; Plaintiff argues forum issues do not justify expedited discovery | Defendants argue transfer to foreign jurisdiction is a risk but not a basis for expedited discovery | Denied; forum considerations do not establish good cause |
Key Cases Cited
- Notaro v. Koch, 95 F.R.D. 403 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) (preliminary-injunction-style analysis for expedited discovery)
- Edgenet, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 259 F.R.D. 385 (E.D. Wis. 2009) (good-cause standard for expedited discovery)
- Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, & Smith, Inc. v. O’Connor, 194 F.R.D. 618 (N.D. Ill. 2000) (advocates good-cause approach to expedited discovery)
- Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (advocates flexible, totality-of-circumstances test)
- Dimension Data N. Am., Inc. v. Netstar-1, Inc., 226 F.R.D. 528 (E.D.N.C. 2005) (good-cause/totality approach to expedited discovery)
- Pod-Ners, LLC v. N. Feed & Bean of Lucerne Ltd. Liab. Co., 204 F.R.D. 675 (D. Colo. 2002) (limited discovery allowed to move case forward)
- Monsanto Co. v. Woods, 250 F.R.D. 411 (E.D. Mo. 2008) (avoid broad or overly burdensome discovery requests)
- Ayyash v. Bank Al-Madina, 233 F.R.D. 325 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (good-cause analysis in expedited discovery)