Listen to this article
Where plaintiffs jointly moved for a preliminary injunction to bar defendants from continuing to operate office spaces under their brand, the defendants have shown good cause to conduct expedited discovery in preparation for an evidentiary hearing on the motion.
“On April 3, 2025, Plaintiffs jointly moved for a preliminary injunction to bar Defendants from continuing to operate office spaces under their brand. … In addition to moving to dismiss the complaint, ECF No. 23, Defendants have since responded with a joint request to conduct expedited discovery ahead of a hearing on Plaintiffs’ preliminary-injunction motion. … Specifically, Defendants ask to serve written discovery on Plaintiffs and take the deposition of Brian O’Doherty, the Senior Vice President of Plaintiffs’ parent company. … Plaintiffs oppose Defendants’ request, arguing that Defendants fail to demonstrate good cause that the discovery is necessary for resolving the preliminary-injunction motion.
“As a threshold matter, an evidentiary hearing is necessary because the parties dispute facts material to this Court’s consideration of Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
“With that settled, the only question that remains at this juncture is whether Defendants have shown good cause to conduct expedited discovery in preparation for the evidentiary hearing.
“Defendants have shown that good cause exists to grant their expedited discovery requests for four reasons. First, a motion for a preliminary injunction is pending, a factor that weighs in favor of an expedited schedule. … Second and relatedly, Defendants’ request is made for the purpose of preparing for a hearing on that motion. … Third, this case has now been pending for six months, which should reduce the burden faced by Plaintiffs in having to produce discovery on an ‘expedited’ basis. … Moreover, Plaintiffs have now had nearly five months since Defendants filed their discovery request to identify and review materials outlined in that request.
“Fourth, Defendants’ desired discovery—one deposition and nine document requests—is limited to that which is necessary to prepare for the pending evidentiary hearing. … In response, Plaintiffs counter that Defendants’ requests are overbroad, irrelevant, and unnecessary, ECF No. 27 at PageID.1200–07, but the requests are limited to the factual disputes noted above: that which is necessary to identify Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits and potential for irreparable harm.
“Plaintiffs, on the other hand, have demonstrated only minimal prejudice that would result from an expedited discovery schedule.
“With these considerations in mind, this Court finds that Defendants’ need for expedited discovery substantially outweighs the prejudice to the Plaintiffs. Accordingly, this Court will grant Defendants’ motion for leave, ECF No. 24, and direct Plaintiffs to respond to Defendants’ Proposed First Request for Production of Documents, ECF No. 24-2.”
