Bell Semiconductor, LLC v. Broadcom Corporation

Background

Bell Semiconductor, LLC brought two breach-of-contract claims against Broadcom Corporation and Avago Technologies International Sales PTE., Limited. The case was originally filed in New York state court and was later moved to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Bell’s amended complaint alleges that one breach involved Broadcom’s failure to disclose a National Semiconductor license and that the resulting circumstances caused damages when Bell attempted to enforce purchased patents against Texas Instruments. The second claim concerns alleged failures by Broadcom to cooperate with discovery for an International Trade Commission investigation involving Lenovo, Motorola, and others.

Broadcom filed a motion asking the court to dismiss both claims for failure to state a claim. The motion was still being briefed: Bell’s opposition was due May 30, 2024, and Broadcom’s reply was due June 6, 2024. No discovery schedule had been entered, and the opinion states that discovery had not begun.

Motion to Stay Discovery

Broadcom separately submitted a letter motion asking the court to stay, or temporarily pause, discovery until the motion to dismiss was decided. Broadcom argued that discovery would be broad, expensive, and different for each claim. It also argued that a short delay would not prejudice Bell and that the motion to dismiss had substantial grounds, including arguments that Count I did not allege a breach of the relevant representation and warranty and that both claims sought contractually prohibited consequential damages.

The letter cited the standard that a court may stay discovery for good cause, including when a dispositive motion is pending, the proposed stay is brief, and the opposing party would not be prejudiced. The opinion text presents these points as Broadcom’s arguments; it does not decide whether those arguments are correct.

Court’s Action

Judge Edgardo Ramos ordered the plaintiffs to respond to the letter motion by May 24, 2024. The text does not state that the court granted or denied the requested stay. The request to pause discovery therefore remained unresolved in this order.