Authenticom, Inc. v. CDK Global, LLC et al
ORDER granting 231 Motion for Partial Stay of Discovery. Depositions, discovery related to electronically-stored information, and all court deadlines are STAYED until the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation resolves the pending motion to consolidate this case with several other similar cases. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 1/12/2018. (kwf)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
CDK GLOBAL, LLC and
THE REYNOLDS AND REYNOLDS COMPANY,
Plaintiff Authenticom, Inc. is suing defendants CDK Global, LLC and The Reynolds
and Reynolds Company for antitrust violations related to defendants’ agreement to deny third
parties access to information from defendants’ data management systems for car dealerships.
Defendants have filed a motion for a partial stay of discovery, Dkt. 231, which is ready for
The impetus for defendants’ motion is a pending motion before the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate this case with several other similar cases against
defendants. Defendants say that, without a stay, they will have to engage in burdensome
discovery multiple times in the event that the panel grants the motion to consolidate. For the
reasons explained below, the court will grant defendants’ motion.
Defendants seek the following relief in their motion: (1) a stay on taking depositions;
(2) a stay on discovery related to electronically-stored information; and (3) an extension on
deadlines for preparing expert reports and filing dispositive motions. Defendants’ basic
argument is that plaintiffs are seeking a wide array of burdensome and expensive discovery,
including 23 depositions and 170 document requests; if the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation grants the pending motion to consolidate, that would allow discovery to be
consolidated as well; if depositions and discovery related to electronically stored information
are not stayed pending the panel’s decision, defendants will be forced to duplicate efforts that
could be combined after the cases are consolidated.
The motion to consolidate is scheduled for oral argument on January 25, 2018. Both
sides are supporting consolidation and both sides agree that a decision on the motion is likely
to be released within a few weeks of the argument.
The court is persuaded that a stay is appropriate until the panel decides whether to
consolidate the actions. It is beyond dispute that the decision on the motion to consolidate
could have a significant effect on the proceedings, both as to scheduling and coordinating
discovery. It is also beyond dispute that allowing discovery to proceed in this case before the
panel makes its decision could lead to a significant waste of resources. The point of multidistrict
litigation is to increase efficiency and minimize duplicative efforts, so it makes little sense to
engage in wide-ranging discovery for only one case just before the panel makes a decision that
could streamline the proceedings.
Authenticom says that a stay is not needed because “[t]he transferee judge would have
tools at his disposal to avoid needless duplication,” Dkt. 237, at 12, but Authenticom does not
identify a way that defendants could avoid repeating much of the same discovery that
Authenticom is requesting now. The examples Authenticom cites involve stipulations among
the parties to coordinate discovery or use evidence in more than one case, but Authenticom
does not suggest that any such stipulations exist in this case and it is implausible to suggest
that any other parties would agree after the fact to rely on depositions that they had no part
The court is sensitive to Authenticom’s desire to resolve its claims as quickly as possible
to minimize financial harm, but the court must balance that desire with the interests of all the
other parties involved as well as the interest of promoting judicial economy. Once the panel
decides whether to consolidate the cases, Authenticom may request a lift of the stay to get the
case back on track.
Along the same lines, the court will stay a decision on defendants’ motion to dismiss
pending a decision on the motion to consolidate. Because any ruling on the merits of the case
could have implications for the other cases, it makes sense to reserve a ruling until the panel
decides how to proceed.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The motion for a partial stay filed by defendants CDK Global, LLC and The
Reynolds and Reynolds Company, Dkt. 231, is GRANTED.
2. Depositions, discovery related to electronically-stored information, and all court
deadlines are STAYED until the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
resolves the pending motion to consolidate this case with several other similar
Entered January 12, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
JAMES D. PETERSON
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?