EHang Inc. v. Wang
- Beth Freeman
- 5:21-cv-02700
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In EHang Inc. v. Wang, Judge Freeman denied expedited discovery, a discovery stay, and the parties’ request to postpone their case-management conference.
EHang Inc. and Gary Wang; discovery was not expedited or stayed, and their initial case-management conference remained scheduled for August 26, 2021.
What happened
In EHang Inc. v. Gary Wang, EHang asked to begin discovery early, while Wang asked the court to pause discovery until it decided his motion to dismiss. The parties also jointly asked to postpone their initial case-management conference.
The court found that EHang had not shown the required good cause for expedited discovery. It also found that Wang had not made the strong showing needed to pause discovery, although his motion to dismiss could potentially resolve the case.
Judge Freeman denied both discovery motions and denied the parties’ request to postpone the conference. The conference remained scheduled for August 26, 2021, and the parties had to file a joint case-management statement by August 23, 2021.
The detailed version
- EHang Inc. v. Wang · No. 5:21-cv-02700
- Beth Freeman
- Aug. 20, 2021
Background
EHang Inc. moved for permission to obtain expedited discovery before the parties’ required conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). Wang filed a cross-motion asking the court to stay, or pause, discovery while his motion to dismiss was pending. The parties also filed a stipulated request to reset the initial case-management conference, which was scheduled for August 26, 2021.
Expedited Discovery
The court applied a “good cause” standard, weighing the need for faster discovery against possible prejudice to the responding party. EHang argued that good cause existed because Wang had refused to participate in the Rule 26(f) conference and had indicated that he would delay discovery. The court concluded that EHang had not shown good cause. It also noted that this was not the type of case in which expedited discovery is ordinarily granted, such as a case involving infringement, a request for a preliminary injunction, or a defendant’s default. The court therefore denied EHang’s motion for expedited discovery.
Motion to Stay Discovery
The court explained that a party seeking to stay discovery carries a heavy burden to make a strong showing that discovery should be denied. Courts may consider whether the pending motion is potentially dispositive and whether it can be decided without additional discovery. The court agreed that Wang’s motion to dismiss was potentially dispositive, but it could not determine at that stage whether Wang was likely to prevail or whether amendment would be allowed. Because the motion relied partly on factual assertions supported by evidence, the court also could not find that the motion could be decided without additional discovery. The court therefore denied Wang’s motion to stay discovery.
Case-Management Conference and Disposition
Because both discovery motions were denied, the court denied the parties’ stipulated request to reset the initial case-management conference. The conference remained set for August 26, 2021, at 11:00 a.m., and the parties were ordered to file a joint case-management statement by August 23, 2021. Judge Beth Labson Freeman did not decide Wang’s motion to dismiss in this order; the order addressed only the discovery motions and the request to reset the conference.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.