Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Andrade

Background

The order addressed three matters: the defendants’ administrative motion to change the initial case-management schedule and obtain relief from related obligations; Juniper Networks, Inc.’s administrative motion for permission to file a sur-reply, meaning an additional response to the defendants’ reply; and the scheduling of the initial case-management conference.

The defendants asked the court to postpone the initial case-management conference and related obligations, including discovery, until after the court ruled on their pending motion to dismiss the complaint or, alternatively, to stay the case. The defendants’ motion to dismiss was based in part on lack of personal jurisdiction. The defendants argued that the motion might resolve the case and that they should not have to spend resources on discovery before the motion was decided. Juniper Networks, Inc. opposed the requested delay, arguing that the defendants had not shown adequate grounds for staying discovery.

Defendants’ Motion to Change Time and Obtain Relief from the Schedule

The court explained that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not automatically stay discovery whenever a potentially case-dispositive motion is pending. A party seeking a discovery stay must show good cause and must make a strong, specific showing supporting the stay.

The court applied a two-part test: first, the pending motion must potentially dispose of the entire case or the issue targeted by discovery; second, the motion must be capable of being decided without additional discovery. The court also conducted a preliminary review of the pending motion’s merits for purposes of deciding whether a stay was warranted.

The court held that the defendants had not met their burden. Their administrative motion did not address the two-part test or establish that both parts were satisfied. The defendants instead relied on general statements that they should not have to spend resources on discovery while their motion to dismiss was pending. The court also concluded that it was not clear that the motion to dismiss was meritorious or that it would dispose of the case even if granted, because Juniper Networks, Inc. had requested jurisdictional discovery if the motion were granted.

Accordingly, the court denied the defendants’ Administrative Motion to Change Time/For Relief from Initial Case Management Schedule.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply

Juniper Networks, Inc. requested permission to file a sur-reply to address what it characterized as new arguments in the defendants’ reply supporting the motion to dismiss. The defendants responded that the reply addressed matters raised in Juniper Networks, Inc.’s opposition rather than presenting new arguments.

The court agreed with the defendants that the reply did not raise new arguments. The court therefore concluded that a sur-reply was not warranted. The court stated, however, that it would consider Juniper Networks, Inc.’s objections to new evidence submitted with the defendants’ reply.

Accordingly, the court denied Juniper Networks, Inc.’s Administrative Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply.

Scheduling Ruling

The court reset the initial case-management conference from July 9, 2020, at 11:00 a.m., to July 16, 2020, at 11:00 a.m. The court made the change for the convenience of the court and the parties and to promote judicial efficiency, because the hearing on the defendants’ motion to dismiss was scheduled for July 16.

Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered the new schedule and stated that the order terminated docket entries 34 and 36. The order did not decide the pending motion to dismiss.