Weihai Lianqiao International Coop Group Co., Ltd. v. A Base IX Co. LLC

Background

The defendants—A Base IX Co. LLC, David A. Apperman, and Albert Gammal—requested a stay of discovery while the court considered their motion to dismiss. In the alternative, they requested an approximately 90-day extension of the discovery deadlines.

The defendants said that the motion to dismiss challenged, among other claims, fraudulent-conveyance and alter-ego claims against the individual defendants. They also said that the plaintiff had served a second set of 100 document requests seeking, among other things, the individual defendants’ personal financial, bank, and tax documents. The defendants characterized those requests as overly broad and burdensome and argued that discovery on claims challenged by the motion to dismiss could prove unnecessary.

The plaintiff did not consent to the requested stay or extension and maintained that discovery should be completed by the existing fact-discovery deadline. The defendants argued that the timing of the discovery responses and deposition deadline made completion under the existing schedule impractical.

Ruling

The court denied the defendants’ request to stay discovery. The order does not separately state a disposition of the defendants’ alternative request for an extension of time. The order addressed discovery management and did not decide the merits of the underlying claims or the pending motion to dismiss.

Effect

The ruling left the requested discovery stay denied. The opinion text does not state any additional change to the discovery schedule or resolve the motion to dismiss.