Calltrol Corporation v. LoxySoft AB

Background

Calltrol Corporation sued LoxySoft AB and others. According to Defendants’ attached letter, the court had previously dismissed all claims except Calltrol’s breach-of-contract claim. Defendants later filed a motion for summary judgment, which is a request for judgment without a trial. They argued that Calltrol could not prove damages and that its contract claim was barred by the statute of limitations.

While that motion was pending, Defendants asked the court to stay, or pause, further discovery. They argued that Calltrol’s requested discovery was broad and burdensome and could not establish Calltrol’s own losses. Calltrol opposed the request, arguing that Defendants’ financial records were needed to calculate damages allegedly resulting from sales that violated restrictive provisions in the Reseller Agreement.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that discovery may be stayed for good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Courts generally consider whether the moving party has made a strong showing that the claim is unmeritorious, how broad and burdensome the discovery would be, and whether pausing discovery would unfairly prejudice the opposing party.

The court noted that Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison had previously granted Calltrol’s motion to compel discovery. That order found that Calltrol was entitled to financial documents concerning sales of non-exempt competing contact-center products under the Reseller Agreement. The court considered that earlier order in deciding whether to pause discovery.

Ruling

Judge Nelson S. Roman denied Defendants’ letter motion to stay discovery and directed Defendants to comply with Judge Davison’s order. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 65. The opinion does not rule on the pending summary-judgment motion or decide whether Calltrol ultimately proves its contract claim.