SHOULDERTAP TECHNOLOGIES, INC. D/B/A FIZZ v. FIZZ SOCIAL CORP.

Background

The court considered two requests: Shouldertap Technologies, Inc.’s request for an initial case-management conference under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16 and 26, and Fizz Social Corp.’s request to stay, or pause, discovery while its motion to dismiss remained pending before Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. Judge Carter had referred both requests and general pretrial supervision to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave.

Reasons for Denying the Discovery Stay

The court explained that a party seeking to pause discovery must show good cause. A pending motion to dismiss does not automatically pause discovery in this type of case. Courts generally consider whether the defendant has made a strong showing that the claims lack merit, whether discovery would be broad or burdensome, and whether the opposing party would be unfairly prejudiced by a stay.

The court found that Fizz Social had not made the required showing. First, without predicting Judge Carter’s decision on the motion to dismiss, the court could not conclude that the amended complaint was clearly without merit. The court noted that Shouldertap had plausibly alleged that its trademark had priority, that Fizz Social marketed products to the same consumers through the same advertising channels using the same name, that there had been nearly a dozen marketplace-confusion incidents during the preceding year, and that the confusion harmed Shouldertap’s reputation.

Second, the court found that Fizz Social had not shown that discovery would be unduly burdensome. Its complaints that Shouldertap’s requests were overly broad were largely broad and conclusory. The court stated that it would supervise discovery to reduce the burden, directed the parties to focus first on document discovery, and explained that Fizz Social could meet and confer about narrowing requests or seek a court conference if necessary. The court left open the possibility of revisiting a pause after substantial document production if the motion to dismiss was still pending.

Third, the court found that Shouldertap would be prejudiced by a stay. The action had previously been stayed while Fizz Social pursued a motion to transfer, and the parties had later focused on the pleadings and venue. Shouldertap also alleged that additional confusion had occurred since the lawsuit began, increasing the likelihood of harm to its commercial reputation if the case did not move forward.

Order

Judge Sarah L. Cave denied Fizz Social’s motion to stay discovery. The court scheduled an initial case-management conference for Tuesday, September 16, 2025, at 4:00 p.m. Eastern time. It also ordered counsel to meet and confer under Rule 26(f) and file a report and proposed case-management plan by Wednesday, September 10, 2025. The Clerk was directed to close the docket entries for the two requests. The order did not resolve Fizz Social’s pending motion to dismiss.