Vantage Mobility International LLC v. Kersey Mobility LLC

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: August 21, 2019
• Docket: 2:19-cv-04684
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Vantage Mobility International LLC, No. CV-19-04684-PHX-JJT

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Kersey Mobility LLC, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 At issue are Plaintiff’s Motion to Conduct Accelerated and Expedited Discovery 16 Regarding Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 18), to which Defendants filed a Response in 17 opposition (Doc. 27); and Defendants’ Motion to Decide Preliminary Injunction Without 18 Hearing (Doc. 28), which the Court will deny, obviating the need for a Response. 19 Plaintiff requests that the Court require expedited discovery between the parties 20 before deciding the pending Application for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 5). Federal Rule 21 of Civil Procedure 26(d) permits a court to order discovery prior to a Rule 26(f) conference 22 between the parties, but such expedited discovery must be for good cause. Stanley v. Univ. 23 of S. Cal., 13 F.3d 1313, 1326 (9th Cir. 1994). The Court agrees with other district courts 24 that have required that expedited discovery intended to assist the Court in resolving a 25 preliminary injunction motion be narrowly tailored to the issues presented in the motion. 26 See Am. LegalNet, Inc. v. Davis, 673 F. Supp. 2d 1063, 1067–68 (C.D. Cal. 2009); 27 Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276–77 (N.D. Cal. 2002). 28 1 To the extent Plaintiff's Motion contains detail regarding the discovery Plaintiff 2|| seeks, the Court does not find it is narrowly tailored to the issues before the Court in the Preliminary Injunction Application, and the Court agrees with Defendants that the 4|| agreements the parties entered into are at the center of the injunction dispute. Accordingly, 5 || Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause for expedited discovery, and the Court will deny 6 || the Motion. See Am. LegalNet, 673 F. Supp. 2d at 1068 (denying the plaintiffs request for || pre-preliminary injunction discovery because the “plaintiff has not limited its discovery 8 || requests to information to preserve the status quo, as it must’) (internal quotations omitted). 9 As for Defendants’ request for the Court to resolve Plaintiffs Preliminary 10 || Injunction Application without a hearing, the Court believes it will benefit from the parties’ 11 || presentations and will thus deny the request. 12 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying Plaintiff's Motion to Conduct Accelerated 13} and Expedited Discovery Regarding Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 18). 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Defendants’ Motion to Decide Preliminary 15 || Injunction Without Hearing (Doc. 28). 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting a hearing on Plaintiff's Application for || Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 5) and any other then-pending motions on September 26, 18 || 2019, at 9:30 a.m. Arizona time, before District Judge John J. Tuchi in Courtroom 505, || Sandra Day O’Connor Federal Courthouse, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona |} 85003. 21 Dated this 21st day of August, 2019. CN 22 “wok: 73 Unifgd State#District Judge 24 25 26 27 28

_2-