Celtig v. Patey et al

Filing 136

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 130 Restated Motion for Protective Order Pursuant to FRCP 26(C). Signed by Magistrate Judge Evelyn J. Furse on 2/5/2019. (jds)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
CELTIG, a Tennessee LLC,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
DENYING RESTATED MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER PURSUANT TO
FRCP 26(C) (ECF NO. 130)

Plaintiff,
v.
AARON
PATEY,
an
Individual,
EVERGREEN STRATEGIES, a Nevada LLC,
PSD INTERNATIONAL, a Utah LLC,
RELAY ADVANCED MATERIALS, a
Delaware Corporation,
Defendants.
EVERGREEN STRATEGIES, a Nevada LLC;
and RELAY ADVANCED MATERIALS,
INC., a Delaware Corporation,
Counterclaimants,
v.
CELTIG, a Tennessee LLC,
Counterdefendant.

RELAY ADVANCED MATERIALS and
EVERGREEN STRATEGIES,
Counterclaim and ThirdParty Plaintiffs,
v.
BRENT BENJAMIN WOODSON, PHILLIP
COX, MICHAEL GUNDERSON, TIBOR
KALNOKI-KIS, BRIAN EDWARDS, DAVID
NIELSON, DAVID WAITE, IMPEL SALES,
a Utah LLC, and UTAH LAKE LEGACY
COALITION, a Utah LLC
Third-Party Defendants.
1

Civil No. 2:17-cv-01086-JNP-EJF
District Judge Jill N. Parrish
Magistrate Judge Evelyn J. Furse

On January 24, 2019, Defendants Evergreen Strategies, PSD International, Aaron Patey,
and Relay Advanced Materials (collectively the “Evergreen Defendants”) filed a Motion for
Protective Order Pursuant to FRCP 26(C). Having considered the parties’ briefing and oral
argument, the Court DENIES as MOOT the Evergreen Defendants’ request to stay the
depositions noticed for January 24 and 25, 2019 based on the representation from counsel for the
Plaintiff and counsel for the Third-Party Defendants that they do not intend to continue to try to
depose the named Defendants. The Court further DENIES the Evergreen Defendants’ Motion
for a Protective Order to immediately stay all discovery in this case because the Evergreen
Defendants have not met their burden of demonstrating hardship or inequity sufficient to justify a
stay.
“[T]he district court has the power to stay proceedings pending before it and to control its
docket for the purpose of ‘economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.’”
Pet Milk Co. v. Ritter, 323 F.2d 586, 588 (10th Cir. 1963) (quoting Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299
U.S. 248, 254 (1936)); Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). When determining whether
or not to grant a stay, the Court “must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.”
Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55. The party seeking the stay “must show ‘a clear case of hardship or
inequity’ if ‘even a fair possibility’ exists that the stay would damage another party.” Creative
Consumer Concepts, Inc. v. Kreisler, 563 F.3d 1070, 1080 (10th Cir. 2009) (quoting Ben Ezra,
Weinstein, & Co., Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 206 F.3d 980, 987 (10th Cir. 2000)). The Evergreen
Defendants fail to demonstrate that the asserted burden they face outweighs the hardship
imposed on the Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendants by further delaying discovery.

2

DATED this 5th day of February, 2019.

BY THE COURT:

____________________________

Evelyn J. Furse
United States Magistrate Judge

3