Battery Handling Systems, Inc. v. James D. Stoneman et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants motion to expedite discovery [Doc. # 25 ] is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs alternative request to quash deposition [Doc. # 30 ] is denied as moot. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 6/9/14. (KJS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
BATTERY HANDLING SYSTEMS, INC.,
JAMES D. STONEMAN, et al.,
Case No. 4:14-CV-782 (CEJ)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on defendants’ motion to expedite discovery by
ordering the plaintiff to answer interrogatories and produce documents within three
days of service and produce four witnesses for depositions within four days of service
of deposition notices. In the alternative, defendants ask the Court to continue the
preliminary injunction hearing scheduled for June 12, 2014.
Plaintiff has filed a
response in opposition to the motion.1
Rule 26(d), Fed.R.Civ.P., provides that a “party may not seek discovery from
any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except . . .
when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court order.” Courts apply either
a “good cause” standard or a preliminary injunction standard to evaluate a motion to
expedite. Monsanto Co. v. Woods, 250 F.R.D. 411, 413 (E.D. Mo. 2008). The Eighth
Circuit has not expressly adopted either standard, Cook v. Williams, 2009 WL 3246877
at *1 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 6, 2009), and a majority of courts use the good cause standard.
Plaintiff’s opposition incorporates a motion, in the alternative, to quash one of
four depositions noticed for June 10, 2014. In the future, the Court will not consider
any motion that is not filed as a separate document.
Dorrah v. United States, 282 F.R.D. 442, 445 (N.D. Iowa 2012). Good cause may be
found where “the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of administration of
justice, out weighs prejudice to the responding party.” Monsanto Co., 250 F.R.D. at
413. In a “good cause” analysis, a court must examine the discovery request “on the
entirety of the record to date and the reasonableness of the request in light of all the
surrounding circumstances.” St. Louis Grp., Inc. v. Metals & Additives Corp., Inc., 275
F.R.D. 236, 239 (S.D. Tex. 2011) (emphasis in original; citations omitted).
Defendants have failed to establish good cause. First, defendants have known
since April 24, 2014, that a preliminary injunction hearing would occur in this matter,
and they have not adequately explained why they delayed seeking expedited discovery
until nine days before the hearing. See Dimension Data North Amer., Inc. v. NetStar1, Inc., 226 F.R.D. 528, 531-32 (E.D.N.C. 2005) (denying plaintiff’s motion for
expedited discovery as “unreasonably timed” where it had not yet filed a motion for
Second, defendants’ proposed discovery is not narrowly
tailored to obtain information relevant to the preliminary injunction. See Monsanto
Co., 250 F.R.D. at 413 (“[C]ourts generally deny motions for expedited discovery when
the movant’s discovery requests are overly broad.”) (alteration in original; citations
omitted). Here, defendants seek “all material facts” and documents pertaining to
allegations in the complaint, including allegations relating to damages. In addition to
being overbroad, the requests are burdensome in light of the short response time.
The Court also finds that continuation of the preliminary injunction hearing is
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ motion to expedite discovery [Doc.
#25] is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s alternative request to quash
deposition [Doc. #30] is denied as moot.
CAROL E. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 9th day of June, 2014.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?