Celgard, LLC v. LG Chem, Ltd. et al

Filing 179

ORDER denying 178 Motion for Leave To Take Third-Party Jurisdictional Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 8/5/2014. (tmg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-043-MOC-DCK
CELGARD, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
LG CHEM, LTD., and LG CHEM AMERICA,
INC.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on Plaintiff’s “Motion For Leave To Take
Third-Party Jurisdictional Discovery” (Document No. 178) filed on August 1, 2014. This matter
has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and
immediate review is appropriate.
The Honorable Max O. Cogburn, Jr. issued an “Order” (Document No. 128) on July 18,
2014: (1) granting Plaintiff’s motion for jurisdictional discovery (Document No. 58) as directed
by the undersigned Magistrate Judge; and (2) referring Defendants’ pending motions to dismiss
and transfer (Document Nos. 30 and 71) to the undersigned Magistrate Judge. Judge Cogburn
specifically stated that the matter would be referred “back to the Magistrate Judge for limited
discovery and disposition of those motions.” (Document No. 128, p.6). Pursuant to Judge
Cogburn’s “Order” (Document No. 128), the undersigned issued an “Order” (Document No.
139) setting a schedule for limited discovery and supplemental briefing.
The undersigned then explicitly directed that:
Plaintiff and Defendants may each submit fifteen (15)
interrogatories and fifteen (15) requests for document production
to the opposition (“discovery requests”), limited to the issue of

jurisdiction. Discovery requests shall be served on or before
August 1, 2014; and responses shall be provided on or before
August 29, 2014.
(Document No. 139, pp.1-2) (emphasis added).
By the instant motion, Plaintiff now seeks clarification as to whether third-party
jurisdictional discovery is permitted under the Court’s previous Orders (Document Nos. 128,
139). (Document No. 178, p.3). Plaintiff suggests that it should be allowed “to serve limited
subpoenas to Defendants’ known customers seeking testimony and documents regarding the
incorporation of Defendants’ infringing battery separators into products that have been placed in
the stream of commerce in North Carolina.” Id.
Plaintiff correctly notes that “Magistrate Judge Keesler’s July 21, 2014 Order does not
expressly permit third-party discovery.” (Document No. 178, p.2). Rather, the undersigned
permitted limited discovery between the parties, regarding jurisdiction, to be completed in a
relatively short period of time so that the Court can then resolve the pending motions seeking
dismissal and/or transfer. (Document No. 139).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion For Leave To Take ThirdParty Jurisdictional Discovery” (Document No. 178) is DENIED.
Signed: August 5, 2014

2