United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY
Honorable James L. Robart, U.S. District Court Judge.
the court is Defendant JHR Electric Transport LLC's
(d/b/a Bam Power Bikes) (“JHR”) motion for a
continuance of case deadlines and protective order staying
discovery until the court rules on JHR's pending motion
to dismiss. (Mot. (Dkt. # 15); see also MTD (Dkt. #
12).) Plaintiff Rad Power Bikes LLC (“Rad Power
Bikes”) opposes the motion. (Resp. (Dkt. # 18).) JHR
filed a reply. (Reply (Dkt. # 20).) The court has considered
the motion, the parties' submissions concerning the
motion, and the applicable law. Being fully advised, the
court DENIES JHR's motion.
Power Bikes is a Washington State limited liability company
that sells hybrid and electric bicycles. (Compl. (Dkt. # 1)
¶¶ 1, 4.) JHR, an Arizona limited liability
company, also sells electric bicycles. (Id. ¶
5.) In April 2019, Rad Power Bikes filed claims against JHR
for copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, false
advertising and false association under the Lanham Act, and
unfair competition under Washington law. (Id.
16, 2019, JHR filed a motion to dismiss. (See MTD.)
JHR argues that the court should dismiss Rad Power Bikes'
claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for
lack of personal jurisdiction. (See Id. at 5-10);
see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2). Alternatively,
JHR argues that the court should dismiss the action under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted. (MTD at 10-14);
see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). JHR's motion
to dismiss is noted for June 7, 2018. (See MTD.)
present motion, JHR asks the court “to continue case
deadlines and issue a protective order staying discovery
until it can rule on JHR's motion to dismiss.”
(Mot. at 1.) JHR argues that it “should not have to
respond to Washington discovery or prepare for and attend
depositions unless the [c]ourt determines that it is subject
to jurisdiction here.” (Id.) According to JHR,
permitting Rad Power Bikes to engage in discovery before the
court's ruling on JHR's motion to dismiss would
impose “an undue burden” on JHR. (Id. at
showing of “good cause, ” the court may limit the
time, place, and manner of discovery, or stay discovery
altogether, as required “to protect a party or person
from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or
expense.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c). “For good cause to
exist, the party seeking protection bears the burden of
showing specific prejudice or harm will result if no
protective order is granted.” Phillips ex rel.
Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206,
1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002). The showing must be particularized.
Id. “[B]road allegations of harm,
unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated
reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test.”
Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d
470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). A party seeking a stay of discovery
carries a “heavy burden” to make a “strong
showing” why discovery should be denied.
Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th
Cir.1975) (citation omitted).
court finds that JHR has not demonstrated good cause to stay
discovery pending the court's ruling on JHR's motion
to dismiss. JHR fails to show that it will suffer
“specific prejudice or harm” should discovery
proceed. See Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1210. JHR makes
only the broad argument that the court should not
“requir[e] JHR to devote substantial resources to a
Washington action” before ruling on its motion to
dismiss. (Mot. at 3.) This generalized complaint falls short
of the “strong showing” required for the court to
stay discovery. See Blankenship, 519 F.2d at 429;
see also Intellicheck Mobilsa, Inc. v. Honeywell
Int l, Inc., No. C16-0341JLR, 2017 WL 4221091, at *5
(W.D. Wash. Sept. 21, 2017) (“[A] pending motion to
dismiss ‘is not grounds for staying
discovery.'”) (quoting Old Republic Title, Ltd.
v. Kelley, No. C10-0038JLR, 2010 WL 4053371, at *4 (W.D.
Wash. Oct. 13, 2010)); Gray v. First Winthrop Corp.,
133 F.R.D. 39, 40 (N.D. Cal. 1990) (“Had the Federal
Rules contemplated that a motion to dismiss under Fed. R.
Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6) would stay discovery, the Rules would
contain a provision to that effect. In fact, such a notion is
directly at odds with the need for expeditious resolution of
litigation.”). The court thus DENIES JHR's motion
to continue the case deadlines and stay discovery.
the parties encounter future discovery-related disputes, the
parties must attempt to resolve those disputes by agreement,
if possible. See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR
37(a)(1). In addition, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 16, the court “direct[s] that before moving
for an order relating to discovery, the movant must request a
conference with the court” by jointly telephoning
chambers with the opposing party. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 16(b)(3)(B)(v). //
foregoing reasons, the court DENIES JHR's motion to
continue the case deadlines and stay discovery. (Dkt. # ...