Dreamdealers USA, LLC v. World Class Driving, Inc et al

Filing 57

ORDER Denying 48 Plaintiff's Renewed MOTION for Order Allowing Expedited Discovery. Counsel for the parties shall conduct a Rule 26(f) conference, no later than 10/26/2012, and submit a proposed joint discovery plan. Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order due by 11/2/2012. Status and Dispute Resolution Conference set for 11/15/2012 10:00 AM in LV Courtroom 3B before Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 10/22/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11

DREAMDEALERS USA, LLC,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
WORLD CLASS DRIVING, INC., et al.,
)
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:12-cv-01151-GMN-PAL
ORDER

12
13

The court held a hearing on Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Order Allowing Expedited

14

Discovery (Dkt. #48) on October 16, 2012. Ismail Amin and Lawrence Kulp appeared on behalf of the

15

Plaintiff. Christian Samay and John Krieger appeared on behalf of the Defendants. The court has

16

considered the Motion, the Declaration of Ismail Amin (Dkt. #49), Defendant Vulcan Motor Club

17

LLC’s Response (Dkt. #51), Plaintiff’s Reply (Dkt. #54), and the arguments of counsel at the hearing.

18

The renewed motion seeks expedited discovery prior to the Rule 26(f) conference in support of

19

Plaintiff’s application for a temporary restraining order which has been fully briefed and is under

20

submission to the district judge. During oral argument at the hearing, counsel for Plaintiff proposed

21

that expedited discovery pertaining to Plaintiff’s request for equitable relief could be completed in

22

approximately 60 days, and that the remaining merit-based discovery could be completed in an

23

additional 120 days. Plaintiff did not wish to conduct the Rule 26(f) conference before conducting

24

expedited discovery because service has not been effectuated on one of the Defendants.

25

Defendants oppose the motion indicating the parties reached an agreement memorialized in an

26

August 23, 2012 letter, not to conduct expedited discovery until the district judge decided whether to

27

set the motion for temporary restraining order for hearing. The parties thereafter agreed to a settlement

28

conference which was conducted by Judge Hoffman, the previously assigned magistrate judge in this

1

case on September 7, 2012. The settlement conference did not result in a settlement, and counsel for

2

Defendants claim Defendants offered to accelerate the Rule 26(f) conference and deadline for

3

submitting the joint proposed discovery plan and scheduling order. However, counsel for Defendants

4

claim that Plaintiff flatly rejected this suggestion and filed this unnecessary motion instead.

5

Plaintiff’s reply argues that the need for a preliminary injunction and expedited discovery in this

6

case is more urgent than before because, since this motion was filed, Plaintiff discovered that

7

Defendants are continuing to use a search term on various internet search engines that infringe

8

Plaintiff’s trade name and wordmark, “Exotics Racing”. The reply also argues that conducting a Rule

9

26(f) conference at this time is inappropriate because Plaintiff has not yet learned the identity of proper

10

Defendants in this action, Vulcan Holdings, LLC has not yet been served or appeared, and “the

11

pleadings are still unsettled” because Defendant filed a Rule 12 motion to dismiss a number of

12

Plaintiff’s claims for relief. Plaintiff therefore suggests that the court order expedited discovery to

13

bypass the normal Rule 26(f) procedures using the pretrial conference procedures outlined in LR 16-

14

2(d).

15

Having reviewed and considered the moving and responsive papers and the arguments of

16

counsel, the court directed counsel for the parties to conduct a Rule 26(f) conference within ten days of

17

the hearing, or no later than October 26, 2012, and to submit a joint proposed discovery plan and

18

scheduling order within seven days of the conference. The court also directed counsel to have specific

19

and detailed discussions of electronically stored information, with input from technical support staff if

20

necessary.

21

IT IS ORDERED that:

22

1.

23
24

Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Order Allowing Expedited Discovery (Dkt. #48) is
DENIED.

2.

Counsel for the parties shall conduct a Rule 26(f) conference, no later than October 26,

25

2012, and submit a proposed joint discovery plan and scheduling order no later than

26

seven days after the conference or no later than November 2, 2012.

27
28

3.

The parties shall have detailed discussions at the Rule 26(f) conference about
electronically stored information (“ESI”) and their respective requests for ESI discovery
2

1

in this case, including the format in which the discovery should be produced. The

2

parties shall, if necessary, involve technical support staff in these discussions with the

3

goal that each side is aware of the ESI each side has, and what has been done to preserve

4

ESI since the duty to preserve was triggered by notice of Plaintiff’s potential lawsuit.

5

The parties shall also discuss the format in which ESI shall be produced, as well as ESI

6

search and production protocols.

7

4.

A status and dispute resolution conference is scheduled for November 15, 2012, at

8

10:00 a.m. Counsel for the parties may appear telephonically. Those requesting to

9

appear telephonically shall contact Courtroom Administrator Jeff Miller no later than

10

4:00 p.m., on November 14, 2012, to provide contact information where they may be

11

reached. He will initiate the conference call for the hearing.

12

Dated this 17th day of October, 2012.

13
14
15

______________________________________
Peggy A. Leen
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3