Dunning v. Supergoop, LLC

Background

The court considered Supergoop, LLC’s request to stay, or pause, discovery while the court resolved Supergoop’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The plaintiffs opposed the request. The opinion addresses only the discovery stay and does not decide the motion to dismiss.

Reasoning

The court applied the standard allowing a discovery stay for good cause. It considered whether the motion to dismiss appeared potentially meritorious, the breadth and burden of the requested discovery, and the risk of unfair prejudice to the plaintiffs.

The court stated that it was taking no position on how it would ultimately rule on the motion to dismiss. It nevertheless found that Supergoop appeared to raise colorable, or legally supportable, threshold challenges to subject-matter jurisdiction based on standing. If successful, those challenges could warrant dismissal of the amended complaint.

The court also found that the plaintiffs’ discovery requests were broad. One interrogatory sought the total amount of products sold in the United States, by product, year, state, dollars, and units, since 2018. The court concluded that proceeding with discovery could impose an excessive burden on Supergoop and require production that might become entirely unnecessary if the motion to dismiss were granted.

The plaintiffs argued that delaying discovery could risk losing important evidence, including sunscreen testing records held by third parties. The court found little risk of unfair prejudice, reasoning that Supergoop appeared to know what materials the plaintiffs would seek and that the court expected Supergoop to preserve evidence while discovery was stayed. The court also noted that the case was in its early stages and that the motion to dismiss would be fully briefed in just over a month.

Disposition

The court granted Supergoop’s motion for a discovery stay. It directed the clerk to close Docket Number 24. The opinion did not rule on the motion to dismiss or the underlying claims.