Bravia Capital Partners v. Hong Kong Bohai Leasing Asset Management Corp…

Background

Bravia brought an action alleging that the defendants breached contracts between the parties. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Bravia filed its opposition, and the defendants’ reply was due on June 26, 2020. The provided text does not state how the motion to dismiss was ultimately resolved.

Discovery dispute

Bravia submitted a letter-motion concerning the defendants’ refusal to participate in a conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). That rule generally requires the parties to meet and discuss the case and a proposed discovery plan as soon as practical after litigation begins. The defendants told Bravia that they considered discovery premature because their motion to dismiss was pending. They also appeared to rely on the postponement of the initial status conference.

Bravia argued that filing a motion to dismiss did not automatically stop discovery and that the defendants had not requested a discovery stay. It asked the court to confirm that the defendants had to confer as soon as practical or, alternatively, to schedule a conference to address the dispute.

Ruling

Judge Jesse M. Furman denied the application without prejudice to renewal. The court directed the parties to meet after the motion to dismiss was fully briefed. If they could not agree about whether and to what extent discovery should proceed, Bravia could renew its motion. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 20.

This order addressed the timing of the Rule 26(f) conference and discovery; it did not decide the merits of Bravia’s contract claims or the defendants’ motion to dismiss.