Summary
staying all discovery in the action pending resolution of a motion to dismiss
Summary of this case from Axcess Glob. Scis. v. Nutriana LLCOpinion
Case No. 2:16-cv-01235-DB-PMW
04-06-2018
CRAFT SMITH, LLC, Plaintiff, v. EC DESIGN, LLC, Defendant. EC DESIGN, LLC, Counterclaim Plaintiff, v. CRAFT SMITH, LLC and MICHAELS STORES, INC., Counterclaim Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
District Judge Dee Benson
Chief Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner
District Judge Dee Benson referred this case to Chief Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Before the court is Craft Smith, LLC and Michaels Stores, Inc.'s (collectively, "Counterclaim Defendants") motion for a protective order (the "Motion"). 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 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).
See docket no. 65.
See docket no. 62.
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"). The EC Depositions were noticed to take place between March 14 and March 26, 2018. 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.
See docket no. 56.
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).
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
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 37-1(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 37-1(a)(3), (4). Counterclaim Defendants' Motion arises under Rule 26, and accordingly, should have complied with this rule.
See docket no. 62 at 2.
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.
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:
/s/_________
PAUL M. WARNER
Chief United States Magistrate Judge