Ash Equipment, Inc. v. LaViers et al (PLR2)

Filing 30

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. The Plaintiff's 14 Motion for Expedited Discovery is hereby DENIED. The Parties are INSTRUCTED to conduct their Rule 26(f) conference no later than October 27, 2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge C Clifford Shirley, Jr on 10/21/14. (JBR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE

ASH EQUIPMENT, INC.
d/b/a/ AMERICAN HYDRO,
Plaintiff,
v.
2X HYDRO-DEMOLITION, LLC
and DONALD G. LAVIERS
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:14-CV-442
(REEVES/SHIRLEY)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and the Rules of this
Court, for disposition of the Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Expedited Discovery. [Doc. 14].
The Court held a hearing on this motion on October 10, 2014 in which attorneys Joshua J.
Sudbury and Mark E. Stamelos were present by telephone for the Plaintiff and attorneys Arthur
G. Seymour and Benjamin C. Mullins were present for the Defendants.
Plaintiff initially filed a Motion to Expedite Discovery with a supporting memorandum
on September 23, 2014. [Docs. 7 & 8]. Plaintiff moved the Court to order Defendants to
respond to twenty-pages of interrogatories and requests for production on or before October 6,
2014, or no later than five (5) business days prior to any preliminary injunction hearing set by the
District Judge. [Doc. 7]. The Court denied the Plaintiff’s Motion on September 25, 2014. [Doc.
12]. The Plaintiff filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction on
September 23, 2014. [Docs. 2 & 3]. Plaintiff filed a Renewed Motion for Expedited Discovery

on September 29, 2014, requesting expedited discovery in order to prepare for an upcoming
hearing regarding Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary
Injunction. [See Doc. 14].
The Parties went before the Honorable Pamela Reeves, District Judge for the Eastern
District of Tennessee, on October 7, 2014 for disposition of the Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. [See Doc. 20]. Judge Reeves denied Plaintiff’s
Motion. [Doc. 22]. The parties came before this Court on October 10, 2014 for disposition of
Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Expedited Discovery. [See Doc. 25].
During the hearing, Plaintiff argued that it had good cause for expedited discovery
despite Judge Reeves’s denial of Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and
Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff requested production of Defendants’ email messages within the
next thirty days and the right to issue subpoenas for discovery requests as soon as possible.
Plaintiff argued that such expedited discovery was necessary to prevent the Defendant from
committing trade secret violations and to guarantee that email messages and other potential
evidence would not be destroyed or lost.
In considering motions for expedited discovery, courts apply a “good cause standard.”
Russell v. Lumpkin, CIV.A. 2:10-CV-00314, 2010 WL 1882139, at *2 (S.D. Ohio May 11,
2010). When requesting discovery prior to a discovery conference as required by Rule 26 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[t]he burden of demonstrating good cause rests with the party
seeking the expedited discovery.” Id. Although good cause is often found pursuant to a request
for preliminary injunction, the moving party may establish good cause by “demonstrating that
‘the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the

2

prejudice to the responding party.’” Id. (quoting Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208
F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D. Cal. 2002)).
The Court has considered Plaintiff’s request and finds that the Plaintiff has not shown
good cause for expedited discovery. Primarily, Plaintiff’s request is moot because its request for
a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction was denied, which was Plaintiff’s sole
purpose for initially filing its Renewed Motion for Expedited Discovery. [See Doc. 14 at 5].
Further, Plaintiff’s undefined and hypothetical concerns that the Defendant may violate
Plaintiff’s trade secrets or that emails could be lost do not satisfy the Court that good cause
exists. The Court finds that the Plaintiff has not identified any need that outweighs the prejudice
that would be placed upon the Defendants to respond within such an abbreviated period and that
such a request is not within the interests of justice.
The Plaintiff’s Motion for Expedited Discovery, [Doc. 14], is hereby DENIED. The
Parties are INSTRUCTED to conduct their Rule 26(f) conference no later than October 27,
2014.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
s/ C. Clifford Shirley, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

3