Eternal Charity Foundation et al v. BBC Broadcasting Inc et al
Filing
56
ORDER that 43 Motion for Jurisdictional Discovery is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 1/26/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ETERNAL CHARITY FOUNDATION, et al,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
BBC BROADCASTING, INC., et al,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
_______________________________________ )
Case No. 2:16-cv-02336-JCM-CWH
ORDER
Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery
11
(ECF No. 43), filed on December 30, 2016. Defendants filed a response (ECF No. 54) on January
12
13, 2017. Plaintiffs did not file a reply.
13
Plaintiffs seek leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery in order to determine the extent to
14
which Defendants’ radio broadcast targeted or was otherwise received by Nevada residents.
15
Defendants oppose the motion, arguing that such discovery would be irrelevant to determining
16
personal jurisdiction.
17
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) generally prevents parties from engaging in
18
discovery until after a 26(f) conference, unless so ordered by the court. A court is within its
19
discretion to deny a request for such discovery “when it is clear that further discovery would not
20
demonstrate facts sufficient to constitute a basis for jurisdiction.” Am. W. Airlines, Inc. v. GPA Grp.,
21
Ltd., 877 F.2d 793, 801 (9th Cir. 1989). Further, “[w]here a plaintiff’s claim of personal jurisdiction
22
appears to be both attenuated and based on bare allegations in the face of specific denials made by
23
the defendants, the Court need not permit even limited discovery.” Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453
24
F.3d 1151, 1160 (9th Cir. 2006) (quotation marks and internal citations omitted).
25
Here, Plaintiffs provide no evidence to back their claims that Defendants’ broadcasts targeted
26
Nevada residents. Defendants have submitted evidence, which Plaintiffs have not contradicted, that
27
their radio broadcasts do not target Nevada residents. The Court finds that evidence that a number
28
1
1
of Nevada residents heard the broadcast would not change the jurisdictional analysis, and therefore
2
not serve to establish the Court’s personal jurisdiction over Defendants. Plaintiffs’ motion is
3
therefore denied.
4
5
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for jurisdictional discovery (ECF No.
43) is DENIED.
6
7
DATED: January 26, 2017.
8
9
_________________________________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?