Hold Security LLC v. Microsoft Inc

W.D. Washington

Hold Security LLC v. Microsoft Inc

DecidedMarch 20, 2024

Docket2:23-cv-00899

StatusUnknown

This text of Hold Security LLC v. Microsoft Inc (Hold Security LLC v. Microsoft Inc) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hold Security LLC v. Microsoft Inc, (W.D. Wash. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 HOLD SECURITY, LLC, CASE NO. C23-899 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING STAY 12 v. 13 MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 14 Defendant. 15 16 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Microsoft Corporation’s (“Microsoft”) 17 Motion to Stay Discovery. (Dkt. No. 40.) Having reviewed the Motion, the Response (Dkt. No. 18 42), the Reply (Dkt. No. 45), and all other supporting material, the Court GRANTS the Motion. 19 BACKGROUND 20 This case arises out of a contract dispute between Hold Security LLC (“Hold”) and 21 Microsoft. The Court previously granted Microsoft’s Motion to Dismiss and gave Hold thirty 22 days to file an amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 37.) Hold filed its Second Amended Complaint 23 24 1 within the timeframe (Dkt. No. 38), and Microsoft again moved to dismiss (Dkt. No. 39). 2 Microsoft now moves for a stay of discovery pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss. 3 ANALYSIS 4 “[D]istrict courts have the inherent authority to manage their dockets and courtrooms

5 with a view toward the efficient and expedient resolution of cases.” Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. 6 40, 47 (2016) (collecting cases). And district courts have wide discretion in controlling 7 discovery, including by staying discovery. See Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th 8 Cir. 1988). 9 Given that this is Hold’s second attempt at bringing claims against Microsoft, the Court 10 agrees with Microsoft that a stay is reasonable pending the resolution of the current motion to 11 dismiss. The Court GRANTS the say until the order on the motion to dismiss is posted. If the 12 case moves forward the parties can meet and confer on any discovery that is still relevant and 13 what is relevant to any claims that may remain. 14 The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.

15 Dated March 20, 2024. A 16 17 Marsha J. Pechman United States Senior District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 HOLD SECURITY, LLC, CASE NO. C23-899 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING STAY 12 v. 13 MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 14 Defendant. 15 16 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Microsoft Corporation’s (“Microsoft”) 17 Motion to Stay Discovery. (Dkt. No. 40.) Having reviewed the Motion, the Response (Dkt. No. 18 42), the Reply (Dkt. No. 45), and all other supporting material, the Court GRANTS the Motion. 19 BACKGROUND 20 This case arises out of a contract dispute between Hold Security LLC (“Hold”) and 21 Microsoft. The Court previously granted Microsoft’s Motion to Dismiss and gave Hold thirty 22 days to file an amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 37.) Hold filed its Second Amended Complaint 23 24 1 within the timeframe (Dkt. No. 38), and Microsoft again moved to dismiss (Dkt. No. 39). 2 Microsoft now moves for a stay of discovery pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss. 3 ANALYSIS 4 “[D]istrict courts have the inherent authority to manage their dockets and courtrooms

5 with a view toward the efficient and expedient resolution of cases.” Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. 6 40, 47 (2016) (collecting cases). And district courts have wide discretion in controlling 7 discovery, including by staying discovery. See Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th 8 Cir. 1988). 9 Given that this is Hold’s second attempt at bringing claims against Microsoft, the Court 10 agrees with Microsoft that a stay is reasonable pending the resolution of the current motion to 11 dismiss. The Court GRANTS the say until the order on the motion to dismiss is posted. If the 12 case moves forward the parties can meet and confer on any discovery that is still relevant and 13 what is relevant to any claims that may remain. 14 The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.

15 Dated March 20, 2024. A 16 17 Marsha J. Pechman United States Senior District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hold Security LLC v. Microsoft Inc, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hold-security-llc-v-microsoft-inc-wawd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack