Bravo Company USA, Inc. v. Badger Ordnance LLC et al

Filing 29

ORDER Denying without prejudice 28 Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 6/24/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

BRAVO COMPANY USA, INC.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
BADGER ORDNANCE LLC and MARTIN J.
)
BORDSON,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

13

Case No. 2:14-cv-00387-RCJ-GWF
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order

14

(#28), filed on June 23, 2014. The parties disagree as to whether a discovery plan and scheduling

15

order should be entered at this time, or if it is entered, when discovery should commence and other

16

pre-trial deadlines should be set under the civil patent rules in this district. See Local Rules (LR)

17

16.1-1 et seq., and 26-1(d).

18

BACKGROUND AND DISCOVERY

19

This is an action for declaratory relief in which Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment of

20

non-infringement of patents owned or controlled by the Defendants. Complaint (#1). Defendants

21

filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on April 23, 2014 on the grounds that this Court lacks

22

personal jurisdiction over them. On June 16, 2014, District Judge Jones denied Defendants’

23

motion to dismiss without prejudice. The Court found that the District of Nevada does not have

24

general personal jurisdiction over the Defendants. The Court also found that Plaintiff have not, as

25

yet, alleged sufficient facts to support the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over Defendants

26

based on their alleged patent enforcement activities in Nevada. The Court, however, granted

27

Plaintiff’s motion to conduct jurisdictional discovery as follows:

28

...

1
2
3
4

The court will permit limited jurisdictional discovery. Plaintiff may
have thirty (30) days to send interrogatories to Bordson concerning
the limited question of whether and in what ways Bordson or his
agents have negotiated or entered into licenses to the Patents in
Nevada or sued others in Nevada regarding the Patents, may request
production of related documents and may depose Bordson for no
more than four (4) hours as to those topics at a place convenient to
Bordson.

5
6

The Court will not permit Plaintiff to conduct discovery for purpose
of obtaining information concerning the ownership rights of the
Patents. . . .

7
8

Order (#26), pg. 9.

9

Plaintiff is correct that Order (#26) does not expressly stay other discovery, pre-trial

10

deadlines or the filing of a discovery plan and scheduling order. Based on the significant issue

11

regarding personal jurisdiction over the Defendants and the limited scope of jurisdictional

12

discovery authorized by the District Judge, the undersigned finds that a stay of other discovery and

13

pretrial deadlines is justified until a final determination is made on personal jurisdiction.

14

“Generally speaking, ‘a pending motion challenging [personal] jurisdiction strongly favors a stay,

15

or at minimum limitations on discovery until the question of jurisdiction is resolved.’” Kabo Tools

16

Co. v. Porauto Indus. Co., Ltd., 2013 WL 5947138, *2 (D.Nev. 2013), citing AMC Fabrication,

17

Inc. v. KRD Trucking West, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist Lexis 146270, *5-6, 2012 WL 4846152, *2

18

(D.Nev. Oct. 10, 2012). Accordingly,

19

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (#28)

20

is denied, without prejudice, as follows: The filing a discovery plan and scheduling order in this

21

case is stayed pending the completion of jurisdictional discovery. This stay shall automatically lift

22

on or before July 30, 2014, unless Defendants file a renewed motion to dismiss based on lack of

23

personal jurisdiction. If a renewed motion to dismiss is filed, then the Court will consider

24

extending the stay until the decision on the renewed motion.

25

DATED this 24th day of June, 2014.

26
27

______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

28
2