Starkey Laboratories, Inc. v. Saykeo

Background

Starkey Laboratories, Inc. sued its former employee, Phetsamone Saykeo, asserting three claims, including misappropriation of trade secrets. Starkey seeks injunctive relief and money damages. It also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and anticipated filing a motion for a preliminary injunction. Starkey asked to conduct limited discovery before the parties’ usual discovery conference so that it could develop the record and determine the issues and scope of relief relevant to the anticipated preliminary-injunction motion.

Saykeo appeared at the hearing, was not represented by a lawyer, was seeking counsel, and did not oppose Starkey’s motion.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) generally prevents a party from seeking discovery before the parties confer as required by Rule 26(f), unless the court authorizes earlier discovery. Courts in the Eighth Circuit generally apply a “good cause” standard to requests for expedited discovery. Under that standard, the requesting party must show that the need for early discovery, considering the administration of justice, outweighs prejudice to the responding party.

Ruling

Judge Susan Richard Nelson found that Starkey showed good cause for limited expedited discovery. The court also found that the discovery would not unduly prejudice Saykeo because he agreed to the limited discovery. The court stated that a more developed record would help Starkey determine the scope of its anticipated preliminary-injunction motion, allow Saykeo to respond more fully, and help the court evaluate the parties’ arguments.

The court therefore granted Starkey’s Motion for Expedited Discovery. Saykeo must respond to the discovery requests attached to Starkey’s supporting declaration, including producing all requested documents, within seven days of the order. Starkey may depose Saykeo for five hours no later than August 29, 2025. Starkey may also serve Chromatic Inc. with the attached subpoena for documents. After expedited discovery is complete, the court will set a briefing schedule for Starkey’s preliminary-injunction motion.

This order decided the timing and scope of discovery; it did not decide the merits of Starkey’s underlying claims or its anticipated request for a preliminary injunction.