TicketOps Corporation v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

Opinion

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

Petitioner and Counter Respondent, v. C21-931 TSZ CORPORATION, Respondent and Counter Petitioner.

The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge: (1) The motion for partial stay of post-judgment discovery, docket no. 73, filed by TicketOps Corporation (“TicketOps”) is DENIED. The Court considers four factors when ruling on a motion to stay: (i) whether the party seeking a stay has made a “strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits,” (ii) whether that party will be “irreparably injured absent a stay,” (iii) whether the issuance of a stay will “substantially injure the other parties,” and (iv) “where the public interest lies.” See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 426 (2009) (citing Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987)). In this case, TicketOps has not made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits, or that it will be irreparably injured absent a stay. Although the Court does not conclude that Costco Wholesale Corporation would be “substantially” injured by a partial stay of post-judgment discovery pending TicketOps’s appeal, a stay would only serve to further delay the timely and efficient resolution of this matter. Further, TicketOps does not explain how the public interest supports its position. Accordingly, the Court concludes that a partial stay of post-judgment discovery pending TicketOps’s appeal is unwarranted. Alternatively, TicketOps requests a partial stay pending its filing of a motion for stay with the Ninth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit’s disposition of that motion. For the reasons discussed above, TicketOps’s alternative request for relief is DENIED. (2) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order to all counsel of record. Dated this 23rd day of June, 2022. Ravi Subramanian Clerk s/Gail Glass Deputy Clerk