Purple Innovations v. Honest Reviews et al
MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER granting in part 115 Sealed Motion re Plaintiff's request to initiate discovery, including a scheduling conference; denying 121 Motion to Stay Briefing; denying 122 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Signed by Judge Dee Benson on 6/1/2017. (blh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
PURPLE INNOVATIONS, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
HONEST REVIEWS, LLC, a Florida
Corporation, RYAN MONAHAN, an
individual, and GHOSTBED, INC., a
Case No. 2:17-cv-138-DB
District Judge Dee Benson
Before the court are the following scheduling matters:
1) Honest Reviews, LLC and Ryan Monahan’s Motion to Stay Briefing (Dkt. No. 121)
2) Honest Reviews, LLC and Ryan Monahan’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief
in Opposition (Dkt. No. 122)
3) Plaintiff’s request to begin discovery (Dkt. No. 115).
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly provide for a stay of discovery or
briefing pending a dispositive motion. However, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) provides
that “[t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance,
embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. Furthermore, “the
power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the
disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and
for litigants. How this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh
competing interests and maintain an even balance.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254–55,
57 S. Ct. 163, 166, 81 L. Ed. 153 (1936).
In determining whether a stay is appropriate, courts often review the following factors:
“(1) plaintiff's interests in proceeding expeditiously with the civil action and the potential
prejudice to plaintiff of a delay; (2) the burden on the defendants; (3) the convenience to the
court; (4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the public interest.”
String Cheese Incident, LLC v. Stylus Shows, Inc., 2006 WL 894955, at *2 (D. Colo. Mar. 30,
2006). Courts have also recognized that a “stay of all discovery is generally disfavored.” Wason
Ranch Corp. v. Hecla Mining Co., 2007 WL 1655362, at *1 (D. Colo. June 6, 2007).
Here, the court finds that plaintiff’s interests in proceeding expeditiously are substantial,
given the nature of the conduct alleged and the relief requested. The court also finds that
Defendants Honest Reviews and Ryan Monahan would not be unduly burdened by engaging in
discovery, as their Motion to Dismiss, even if granted, would likely result in continued litigation
elsewhere. The court recognizes that Ghostbed, Inc. may potentially be burdened by discovery, if
the court grants its Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6).
However, that burden is limited by the short time period remaining between now and July 7,
2017, when the motion will be heard. The court has an interest in resolving this matter
expeditiously, and has not observed any third party or public interests that would necessitate a
stay in discovery.
In balancing the competing interests, the court finds a stay of the briefings, proceedings,
or discovery to be inappropriate. As such, Honest Reviews, LLC and Ryan Monahan’s Motions
to Stay Briefing (Dkt. No. 121) or for an Extension of Time to File Brief in Opposition (Dkt. No.
122) are DENIED. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to begin discovery (Dkt. No. 115) is
GRANTED as follows: the parties are ORDERED to forthwith commence discovery, pursuant to
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including participation in a Rule 26(f) scheduling
conference. The Parties shall submit a proposed scheduling order to the court no later than July
7, 2017. The court will consider Plaintiff’s Motion to Expedite Discovery at the time of the
Preliminary Injunction hearing.
Defendants’ Motions to Stay Briefing (Dkt. No. 121) or for an Extension of Time to File
Brief in Opposition (Dkt. No. 122) are DENIED. Plaintiff’s request to initiate discovery,
including a Rule 26(f) scheduling conference, is GRANTED.
DATED this 1st day of June, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
United States District Judge
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?