Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. Servin ( 2011 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE )
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 09-2014 (RWR)
)
JACQUES SERVIN et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Plaintiff Chamber of Commerce of the United States of
America brings this action against Jacques Servin and others
asserting claims including trademark infringement and dilution,
unfair competition, cyber-piracy, and unfair trade practices.
The defendants have moved for a stay of discovery and the
disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. They
argue that discovery in this case is likely to be extensive and
costly, and that the defendants should not be exposed to
discovery expenses since they also have pending a motion to
dismiss which, if granted, would terminate the litigation.
(Defs.’ Mot. to Stay Discovery and Rule 26 Disclosures at 1-3.)
The Chamber of Commerce opposes, arguing that the Chamber is at
risk of ongoing harm because the defendants expressly refused to
cease their purportedly wrongful conduct, and that the defendants
have not assured the Chamber that they will preserve relevant
-2-
evidence. (Pl.’s Mem. in Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. to Stay Discovery
and Rule 26 Disclosures (“Pl.’s Mem.”) at 10-11.)
In this case, no discovery scheduling order has been entered
yet in light of the pendency of the dispositive motion filed by
the defendants.1 Moreover, plaintiffs aver, and defendants do
not dispute, that the parties have not conferred about the
discovery that is necessary, and defense counsel have not agreed
to meet to discuss the scope of discovery. (Pl.’s Mem. at 9-10.)
Thus, a request to stay discovery appears premature. In
addition, the defendants have asserted that they have ceased the
conduct specifically complained about by the Chamber of Commerce
and that “defendants’ counsel are properly abiding by all legal
and ethical guidelines and preserving all relevant evidence to
the best of their knowledge and ability.”2 (See Defs.’ Reply at
1
“[I]t is well settled that discovery is generally
considered inappropriate while a motion that would be thoroughly
dispositive of the claims in the Complaint is pending.” Institut
Pasteur v. Chiron Corp., 315 F. Supp. 2d 33, 37 (D.D.C. 2004)
(internal quotation omitted); see also Covad Communications Co.
v. Revonet, Inc., 250 F.R.D. 14, 18 (D.D.C. 2008) (noting that
discovery was stayed pending resolution of a motion for judgment
on the pleadings “in order to save the litigants potentially
unnecessary discovery expenses”).
2
The Chamber of Commerce has moved for leave to file a
surreply, arguing that the defendants asserted in their reply
brief that they gave up control of a Web site, but “refused the
Chamber’s request for proof . . . [and] it is unclear whether the
Defendants really have given up control of the” Web site. (Pl.’s
Mot. for Leave to File Surreply at 3.). Motions for leave to
file a surreply are not favored, although courts may be inclined
to grant leave to file a surreply when it responds to new factual
allegations “of substantial import.” Tnaib v. Document Techs.,
-3-
4-5.) With no need demonstrated at this point for a stay, the
defendants’ motion will be denied. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that defendants’ motion [17] to stay discovery and
Rule 26 disclosures be, and hereby is, DENIED without prejudice.
It is further
ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion [28] for leave to file a
surreply be, and hereby is, DENIED.
SIGNED this 11th day of March, 2011.
/s/
RICHARD W. ROBERTS
United States District Judge
LLC, 450 F. Supp. 2d 87, 89 n.3 (D.D.C. 2006). Here, the Chamber
has not demonstrated why this purported factual dispute is of
substantial import in resolving the defendants’ motion. The
motion for leave to file a surreply, then, will be denied.