Sports Marketing Monterrey Group LLC v. Socios Services US Inc.

Background

The court held a hearing on defendants’ motion for expedited discovery and to modify the briefing and hearing schedule for the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Defendants sought permission to serve ten requests for production of documents that they said were necessary to defend against the injunction motion. They also requested more time for briefing and a later hearing.

Defendants argued that the requests were narrowly tailored and necessary because the plaintiff’s supporting evidence was vague about issues including the types of “fan engagement opportunities” the plaintiff offered and when it first learned about socios.com.

The plaintiff opposed the motion. It argued that defendants had not shown good cause because the requests were burdensome and not narrowly tailored to the issues raised by the injunction motion. The plaintiff also argued that defendants could oppose the injunction by asserting that the plaintiff had not met its burden, without conducting merits discovery. The plaintiff attached additional evidence concerning some of the requested topics and stated that it would provide some further discovery on January 16. At the hearing, the plaintiff’s counsel also represented that Mr. Villalobos’s knowledge of socios.com was the company’s knowledge and that no one at the company knew about socios.com before Mr. Villalobos.

Court’s Reasoning

The court explained that expedited discovery may be allowed when there is “good cause,” meaning that the need for immediate discovery, considering the administration of justice, outweighs the responding party’s prejudice. Courts may consider whether a preliminary injunction is pending, the breadth and purpose of the requests, the burden of responding, and how early the discovery is sought.

The court found that the plaintiff had voluntarily agreed to provide a significant amount of the information defendants sought. Defendants remained free to argue that the plaintiff had not met its burden to obtain a preliminary injunction—for example, because the plaintiff’s evidence was too generalized. The court concluded that any further discovery at that stage would be too burdensome and that defendants had not demonstrated good cause.

Disposition

Judge Susan Illston denied defendants’ motion for expedited discovery and to modify the briefing and hearing schedule. The court granted defendants an extension until January 20, 2023, to file their opposition. The remainder of the preliminary-injunction schedule remained unchanged. The court also ordered that documents produced by the plaintiff be designated “outside counsel’s eyes only.”