Richmond v. Medicredit, Inc.

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA STATESVILLE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:21-CV-00068-KDB-DSC

ROSALIND RICHMOND, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) MEDICREDIT INC., ) ) Defendant. )

THIS MATTER is before the Court on “Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Outstanding Discovery” (document # 27) as well as the parties’ briefs and exhibits. On June 22, 2021, the Court ordered that “[t]he parties shall conduct limited jurisdictional discovery with a deadline of August 23, 2021. Discovery shall be confined to personal jurisdiction issues related to Defendant’s conduct towards the forum state.” “Order” at 2 (document #12). On September 3, 2021, the Court extended jurisdictional discovery through November 3, 2021. The Court has careful reviewed the parties’ arguments, the record and the authorities. The discovery responses that Plaintiff seeks are beyond the scope necessary to resolve whether Defendant had sufficient minimum contacts to support specific personal jurisdiction. It is undisputed that Defendant is not headquartered in North Carolina. Accordingly, general personal jurisdiction is not at issue. Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 125 (2014); Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, SA v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 918 (2011). For those reasons and the other reasons stated in Defendant’s brief, the Motion will be denied.

NOW IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. “Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Outstanding Discovery” (document # 27) is DENIED. 2. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to counsel for the parties and to the Honorable Kenneth D. Bell.

SO ORDERED.

Signed: October 28, 2021

David S. Cayer United States Magistrate Judge ae!