Lu v. Cheer Holding Inc

Background

Kevin X. Lu moved to compel Cheer Holding, Inc. to comply with Rule 26(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That rule generally requires parties to exchange certain information at the beginning of discovery, including contact information for individuals likely to have discoverable information.

Under a case-management order issued by Judge Ronnie Abrams, the parties were initially scheduled to exchange initial disclosures by April 5, 2024. The deadline was extended to April 10 at Lu’s agreement. The parties exchanged disclosures on April 10.

Cheer Holding listed seven individuals likely to have discoverable information. For five of them, it stated that they could be contacted only through Cheer Holding’s counsel. Cheer Holding provided business addresses and telephone numbers for two others. Lu argued that Cheer Holding was required to disclose the contact information for every listed individual and asked the court to order production within seven days.

Court’s reasoning

Judge Stein denied the motion to compel. The court explained that, under its April 19, 2024 order, all discovery in the case was stayed while Cheer Holding’s motion to dismiss was being resolved. The stay included initial disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1). The court relied on a decision holding that a statutory discovery stay also covered initial disclosures because those disclosures function as a form of discovery.

Although the parties exchanged initial disclosures on April 10, before the stay began, the court stated that they did not do so pursuant to a court order, contrary to Lu’s suggestion. The court said Lu could raise objections to Cheer Holding’s initial disclosures if the discovery stay were lifted.

The court also instructed Lu to follow the magistrate judge’s individual practices, which required the parties to confer in good faith before presenting a discovery dispute. The court struck Lu’s reply letter because those practices did not permit reply letters. It also denied the relief requested in the last sentence of Cheer Holding’s letter.

Disposition

The court denied Lu’s motion to compel. The opinion does not state that the discovery stay was lifted or that the court decided whether Cheer Holding ultimately violated Rule 26(a)(1).