Guo v. Yao

Background

This order resolves two non-dispositive discovery motions. Gao and Leafire (the “Leafire Defendants”) sought a stay, meaning a pause, of discovery directed to them while their motion to dismiss was pending. Yao asked the court to compel the plaintiffs to respond to discovery or, alternatively, to stay discovery against all parties while the Leafire Defendants’ motion to dismiss was considered.

Analysis

The court explained that filing a motion to dismiss does not automatically stop discovery. A court may stay discovery for good cause, but the party seeking the stay must provide particular and specific facts supporting it. The relevant considerations included the apparent strength of the motion to dismiss, the scope of the requested discovery, the burden of responding, and possible unfair prejudice.

The court concluded that the Leafire Defendants had not shown good cause. It could not determine that their motion to dismiss was clearly strong or weak because both sides had presented potentially meritorious arguments. Although some interrogatories exceeded what local rules allowed at that stage and some requests might be objectionable, defendants could raise specific objections. Overall, the court did not find responding to the discovery excessively burdensome.

The court also noted that the case had been pending since August 2023 and that several months could pass before the motion to dismiss was decided. Proceeding with discovery against some defendants but not others could create different schedules or delay the case. The parties’ proposed case-management plan, and the resulting court order, also stated that discovery would not be stayed pending a decision on a motion. In addition, the motion to dismiss partly challenged personal jurisdiction over Gao and Leafire, and some discovery could be relevant to that issue.

Regarding Yao’s motion to compel, the plaintiffs argued that the parties had not adequately met and discussed the discovery dispute first. The court found that the parties’ emails showed an effort to do so and found no sufficient basis to deny the motion on that ground.

Disposition

The court denied the motion for a stay and granted the motion to compel. The parties were ordered to proceed with responding to each other’s discovery requests. The court further stated that the Leafire Defendants’ participation in court-ordered discovery would not waive their challenge to personal jurisdiction. The clerk was directed to terminate the motions at Dockets 56 and 60.