Soo Hyun Kim v. Coupang, LLC f/k/a Forward Ventures, LLC

COURT OF CHANCERY
OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE
417 S. State Street
JOSEPH R. SLIGHTS III Dover, Delaware 19901
VICE CHANCELLOR Telephone: (302) 739-4397
Facsimile: (302) 739-6179
Date Submitted: January 15, 2021
Date Decided: January 22, 2021
Kenneth J. Nachbar, Esquire Matthew E. Fischer, Esquire
Alexandra M. Cumings, Esquire Andrew H. Sauder, Esquire
Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP Aaron R. Sims, Esquire
1201 North Market Street Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP
Wilmington, DE 19801 1313 North Market Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Soo Hyun Kim v. Coupang, LLC f/k/a Forward Ventures, LLC
C.A. No. 2020-0772-JRS
Dear Counsel:
I have reviewed the briefing on Defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery
(the “Motion”). For reasons explained below, the Motion is granted.
The Motion seeks a stay of discovery pending resolution of Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss. “Absent special circumstances, discovery will normally be
stayed pending the determination of a motion to dismiss the complaint. ‘Special
circumstances’ have been found to include situations where (i) the motion does not
offer a ‘reasonable expectation’ of avoiding further litigation, (ii) plaintiff has
requested interim relief, and (iii) the plaintiff will be prejudiced because the
Soo Hyun Kim v. Coupang, LLC f/k/a Forward Ventures, LLC
C.A. No. 2020-0772-JRS
January 22, 2021
Page 2
information may be unavailable at a later time.” Weschler v. Quad-C, 2000
WL 33173170, at *1 (Del. Ch. Sept. 12, 2000).
Plaintiff opposes the Motion on the ground that the Motion to Dismiss
“does not offer a reasonable expectation of avoiding further litigation” because the
Court will likely deny it. But whether vel non the Motion to Dismiss will be granted
or denied is not the question on this Motion. The question, instead, is whether the
Motion to Dismiss, if successful, will avoid the need for further litigation.
See Weschler, 2000 WL 33173170, at *1 (Del. Ch. Sept. 12, 2000). The answer to
that question is undisputed; the Motion to Dismiss seeks dismissal of all claims.
If successful, it will terminate the litigation.
Plaintiff also contends the Motion should be denied since the discovery he
seeks will not impose an undue burden. Here again, that is not the standard by which
this court reviews applications to stay discovery in the midst of pending dispositive
motion practice. See Barton v. Club Ventures Investments LLC, 2013 WL 6797407,
at *1 (Del. Ch. Dec. 23, 2013) (noting the burden to justify a stay discovery often is
“easily met because avoiding unnecessary discovery is usually sufficient
Soo Hyun Kim v. Coupang, LLC f/k/a Forward Ventures, LLC
C.A. No. 2020-0772-JRS
January 22, 2021
Page 3
justification for a stay of discovery pending resolution of a potentially dispositive
motion”).
Based on the foregoing, I am satisfied the Court should exercise its discretion
under Court of Chancery Rule 26(c) to enter a protective order staying discovery
until the Court resolves the pending Motion to Dismiss, or until further order of the
Court. Given this ruling, the hearing on the Motion scheduled for January 28, 2021,
at 11:00 a.m. is adjourned.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Joseph R. Slights III