Trevino v. Active Gear Corp et al

Filing 5

ORDER GRANTING 3 Emergency Motion Conduct Discovery Prior to the Time Specified in Rule 26(D); Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve a copy of this Order with the discovery request. Plaintiff may not serve the discovery request on any Defendant that h as not first been served with the Complaint. The Court ORDERS Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's discovery request by whichever of the following dates comes later: 11/10/2016; or 7 days after service of the discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge John E Martin on 11/2/16. (jss)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
REYNALDO TREVINO,
Plaintiff,
v.
ACTIVE GEAR CORP., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO.: 2:16-CV-458-WCL-JEM

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Conduct Discovery Prior
to the Time Specified in Rule 26(d) [DE 3], filed by Plaintiff on October 31, 2016.
I.

Background
Plaintiff filed this products liability lawsuit on October 31, 2016, for injuries he sustained

when his bicycle cracked in half on November 28, 2014. The Complaint names as defendants the
bicycle’s seller, Active Sports, Inc., and the bicycle’s distributor and manufacturer, Active Gear
Corp. The Complaint also identifies an “unknown Chinese Manufacturer” that “participated in the
manufacture” of the bicycle.
Because the statute of limitations on Plaintiff’s claims will expire on November 28, 2016,
Plaintiff asks the Court to allow him to conduct limited discovery to determine the identity of the
“unknown Chinese Manufacturer.” Plaintiff believes either or both Defendants know the
manufacturer’s identity.
II.

Analysis
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally prohibit discovery from occurring before the

parties conduct a Rule 26(f) conference, and here the parties have not held a Rule 26(f) conference.

1

But the Court may enter an order allowing early discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1) (“A party may
not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f),
except . . . by court order.”). Courts apply either a “good cause” standard or a preliminary injunction
standard to evaluate a request for early discovery. See Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. FDIC, 283 F.R.D.
556, 557 (N.D. Iowa 2012) (applying good cause standard and denying motion for early discovery
because the requesting party did not “demonstrate any . . . pressing need”). Most courts use the
“good cause” standard. Id.
Under the good cause standard, the party seeking early discovery must show that the need
for the discovery outweighs the prejudice to the responding party. Monsanto Co. v. Woods, 250
F.R.D. 411, 413 (E.D. Mo. 2008) (finding good cause where the plaintiff needed to collect seed
samples in a patent infringement case before the crop was destroyed).
Here, the need for discovery is great due to the impending statute of limitations deadline, and
there is minimal, if any, possible prejudice to Defendants. Plaintiff merely seeks to serve an early,
narrowly tailored interrogatory regarding “the identity of anyone who may have designed,
manufactured, or distributed the steering mechanism and fork of the bicycle” at issue in Plaintiff’s
Complaint. By all appearances, Defendants will easily be able to respond, either with information
regarding the bicycle’s manufacturers or distributors, or with a representation that they do not have
that information.
The Court’s only hesitation is the fact that Defendants have not even been served with
Plaintiff’s Complaint, let alone had time to respond to Plaintiff’s motion. But because of the extreme
time sensitivity, the Court nevertheless finds good cause to allow the early discovery. E.g., Cook v.
Williams, No. 09-1375, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93103 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 6, 2009) (finding good cause

2

and granting motion for an early discovery deposition even though no defendant had been served
with the complaint); Lamar v. Hammel, No. 08-02, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9774, *4 (S.D. Ill. Feb.
11, 2008) (“the Court[’]s broad power over discovery has been found sufficient to permit
authorization of discovery before a Rule 26(f) conference in order to aid the identification of
unknown defendants”). If Defendants object to the early discovery or believe that responding will
in fact prejudice them in some way, they can easily file a motion to that effect.
III.

Conclusion
For the reasons above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Conduct

Discovery Prior to the Time Specified in Rule 26(D) [DE 3]. Plaintiff may serve a single
interrogatory on either or both Defendants regarding “the identity of anyone who may have
designed, manufactured, or distributed the steering mechanism and fork of the bicycle” that is the
subject of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve a copy of this Order with the discovery request.
Plaintiff may not serve the discovery request on any Defendant that has not first been served with
the Complaint.
The Court ORDERS Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery request by whichever
of the following two dates comes later: (1) November 10, 2016; or (2) 7 days after service of the
discovery.
SO ORDERED this 2nd day of November, 2016.
s/ John E. Martin
MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN E. MARTIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
cc:

All counsel of record

3