Craft Smith v. EC Design

Filing 77

MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER granting 62 Motion for Protective Order. The Court orders that the EC Depositions and all other discovery in this action is STAYED pending a hearing and ruling on the Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner on 4/6/2018. (blh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

CRAFT SMITH, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER

EC DESIGN, LLC,
Defendant.
Case No. 2:16-cv-01235-DB-PMW
EC DESIGN, LLC,
Counterclaim Plaintiff,
District Judge Dee Benson

v.
CRAFT SMITH, LLC and
MICHAELS STORES, INC.,

Chief Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner

Counterclaim Defendants.

District Judge Dee Benson referred this case to Chief Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). 1 Before the court is Craft Smith, LLC and Michaels
Stores, Inc.’s (collectively, “Counterclaim Defendants”) motion for a protective order (the
“Motion”). 2 The court has carefully reviewed the written memoranda submitted by the parties.
Pursuant to civil rule 7-1(f) of the Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the

1

See docket no. 65.

2

See docket no. 62.

District of Utah (the “Local Rules”), the court has concluded that oral argument is not necessary
and will determine the Motion on the basis of the written memoranda. See DUCivR 7-1(f).
BACKGROUND
The Motion seeks an order staying eight depositions (the “EC Depositions”) noticed by
EC Design, LLC (“EC Design”) until after resolution of Counterclaim Defendants’ pending
motion to dismiss (the “Motion to Dismiss”). 3 The EC Depositions were noticed to take place
between March 14 and March 26, 2018. 4 Counterclaim Defendants argue that good cause exists
for staying the Depositions because if the Motion to Dismiss is granted, and all of EC Designs’
counterclaims are dismissed, the expense and burden of the EC Depositions can be avoided.
EC Design does not directly address this argument. Instead, EC Design takes issue with
the timing and procedural flaws in Counterclaim Defendants’ request for a protective order. EC
Design asserts that it first noticed the EC Depositions after Counterclaim Defendants filed the
Motion to Dismiss, and the Motion was not filed until after EC Design modified the dates of the
EC Depositions at Counterclaim Defendants’ request. Moreover, EC Design asserts that
Counterclaim Defendants did not comply with Local Rule 37-1, because the Motion exceeds 500
words and did not include a certification that the parties had met and conferred in an effort to
resolve the dispute. See DUCivR 37-1(a).
DISCUSSION

3

See docket no. 56.

4

The EC Depositions were automatically stayed by the filing of the Motion by the third business
day after service of the notice of the EC Depositions pursuant to DUCivR 26-2(b).
2

The court finds that there is good cause to stay the EC Depositions. The need to expend
time and resources to conduct the EC Depositions may indeed be mooted if the Motion to
Dismiss is granted. For the same reason, the court finds that there is good cause to stay all
discovery in this action pending resolution of the Motion to Dismiss.
However, the court admonishes the parties that, in the future, failure to comply with the
Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will not be tolerated. Motions requesting
the resolution by court order of disputes arising under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26
through 37 and 45 must follow the short form discovery format and procedure. See DUCivR 371(a)(1), (3). Such motions may not exceed 500 words and “must include a certification that the
parties made reasonable efforts to reach an agreement on the disputed matters.” See DUCivR 371(a)(3), (4). Counterclaim Defendants’ Motion arises under Rule 26, 5 and accordingly, should
have complied with this rule.
Moreover, Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires the court and the
parties to “construe[], administer[], and employ[]” the rules “to secure the just, speedy, and
inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. The court
considers a meaningful meet-and-confer to be essential to the parties’ obligation to secure the
speedy and inexpensive resolution of this action. Therefore, the court will not consider further
motions that do not contain a certification that the parties have satisfied their meet-and-confer
obligations under the rules.

5

See docket no. 62 at 2.
3

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the court hereby GRANTS the Motion and ORDERS that the
EC Depositions and all other discovery in this action is STAYED pending a hearing and ruling
on the Motion to Dismiss. Within fourteen (14) days after the resolution of the Motion to
Dismiss, if the Motion to Dismiss is denied in whole or in part:
1.

the parties shall file a stipulated amended scheduling order, or,

2.

if the parties cannot agree, either party shall file a motion for the entry of a

scheduling order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 6th day of April, 2018.
BY THE COURT:

PAUL M. WARNER
Chief United States Magistrate Judge

4