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)

Download PDF
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?