Knocking Inc. v. Carter
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:24-cv-09020
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Knocking Inc. v. Carter, Judge Caproni denied without prejudice the Carter Defendants’ request to stay discovery pending their motion to dismiss.
Knocking Inc., the Carter Defendants, and Courtney Spencer, because the request concerned discovery in the case.
What happened
Knocking Inc. sued the defendants under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act and added twelve state-law claims.
The Carter Defendants asked the court to pause discovery while it considered their motion to dismiss. They argued that the case might be dismissed for lack of constitutional standing or jurisdiction and other pleading defects; Knocking did not consent, and Courtney Spencer had not responded to the request.
The court denied the application without prejudice. It directed the parties to meet and confer about the discovery dispute and said they should be prepared to discuss the request at the upcoming initial pretrial conference. Judge Caproni did not decide the motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Knocking Inc. v. Carter · No. 1:24-cv-09020
- Valerie Caproni
- Jan. 30, 2025
Background
Knocking Inc. filed a complaint alleging that the defendants violated the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act. The complaint also asserted twelve state-law claims. The Carter Defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6). Those rules address, respectively, subject-matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and whether the complaint adequately states a claim.
Request to Stay Discovery
The Carter Defendants asked the court to stay, or temporarily pause, discovery until the court resolved their motion to dismiss. They argued that the motion raised substantial issues, including whether Knocking had constitutional standing to bring the federal trade-secret claim, whether the court had personal jurisdiction over them, and whether the complaint adequately alleged protectable trade secrets, economic value, and misappropriation. They also argued that discovery would be broad, burdensome, and potentially require disclosure of confidential business information before the court determined which claims could proceed.
Knocking did not consent to the requested stay. The letter stated that counsel for Courtney Spencer had not responded. The Carter Defendants argued that the standing issue also applied to Knocking’s claims against Spencer, even though Spencer had not filed a motion to dismiss.
Court’s Action
The court’s endorsement states: “Application DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.” The court instructed the parties to meet and confer in good faith, in person or by telephone, before bringing a discovery dispute to the court. If that process did not resolve the dispute, the parties were directed to jointly call chambers for a teleconference. The court said the parties should be prepared to discuss the request to stay discovery at the initial pretrial conference scheduled for January 31, 2025, and that written submissions about discovery disputes should not be made without permission.
The order addressed only the request to pause discovery. It did not decide the pending motion to dismiss, the standing and jurisdiction arguments, or the merits of Knocking’s claims.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.