Ditch Witch of Charlotte, Inc. v. Bandit Industries, Inc.

Filing 18

ORDER denying 12 Motion for Reconsideration. Defendants request to engage in limited reciprocal discovery is hereby granted except as to Requests 1 and 4 of Defendants Requests for Production of Documents. Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 5/22/2015. (eef)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:15CV181
DITCH WITCH OF CHARLOTTE, INC., )
d/b/a Ditch Witch of the Carolinas,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
Vs.
)
)
BANDIT INDUSTRIES, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of the
Court’s Order of May 11, 2015 allowing Plaintiff to take early discovery. In its May 11 Order,
the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Take Early Discovery pursuant to Rule
26(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 16.1(F). Defendant seeks
reconsideration, arguing that the Plaintiff failed to show good cause because the discovery
motion is premature, the discovery requests are not narrowly tailored, and the Plaintiff has failed
to show that it will suffer irreparable harm. The Court finds that Defendant’s arguments are
without merit.
Rule 26(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure prohibits discovery prior to
conferral as required by Rule 26(f) “except . . . when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or
by court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). Local Rule 16.1(F) provides that:
Court enforceable discovery does not commence until issues have joined
and a Scheduling Order is entered. If a party believes that early court
sanctioned discovery is warranted, such party may file a motion for leave to
take early discovery therein showing good cause.

Defendant contends that Plaintiff has failed to show good cause because its
motion was premature. Plaintiff has not yet moved for a temporary restraining
order or preliminary injunction. Defendant cites several cases from district courts
in North Carolina in support of its argument that early discovery is premature in
the absence of a pending motion for preliminary injunction. However, none of the
cases relied upon by Defendant stand for the proposition that the absence of a
pending motion is dispositive. While it is true that Plaintiff has yet to file a formal
motion, its Complaint requests relief in the form of a preliminary and permanent
injunction.
Defendant next argues that the Plaintiff’s discovery requests are not
narrowly tailored and go beyond the bounds of what is necessary for a preliminary
injunction motion. The Court has reviewed the discovery requests in light of the
allegations in the Complaint and finds that the requests are sufficiently limited and
are not overly burdensome or overbroad.
Lastly, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to show that it will incur
irreparable harm without a grant of expedited discovery. Specifically, Defendant
asserts that Plaintiff has not made a showing that its alleged damages related to the
non-renewal of the Agreement at issue cannot be adequately remedied by a
monetary judgment. Irreparable harm must certainly be shown in order to prevail
on a motion for preliminary injunction. At this stage in the litigation, the Court
finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint adequately sets forth and specifically alleges
irreparable harm.

Defendant moves in the alternative for leave to conduct its own expedited
discovery, including taking the depositions of three of Plaintiff’s employees within
the next thirty days and an expedited Request for Production of Documents.
Plaintiff does not object to the depositions or Requests 2 and 3 of the Request for
Production. However, Plaintiff argues that Requests 1 and 4, which seek
documents from 2004 to present, is grossly overbroad given that the parties were
operating under a different dealer agreement prior to 2007. The Court agrees.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for
Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for the reasons stated herein. Defendant’s
request to engage in limited reciprocal discovery is hereby granted except as to
Requests 1 and 4 of Defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents.

Signed: May 22, 2015