Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Cgb Diversified Servs. v. Forsythe

United States District Court for the District of Kansas

May 6, 2020, Decided; May 6, 2020, Filed

Case No. 20-2120-JAR-TJJ



This case involves allegations of breach of confidentiality and non-compete and non-solicitation agreements, unlawful use and disclosure of trade secrets, and tortious interference. On March 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed for a Temporary Restraining Order,1 which has been granted in part, denied in part, and deferred in part.2 Now, Plaintiff seeks expedited discovery in preparation for a yet to-be-set Preliminary Injunction hearing.3 Defendant opposes Plaintiff's request for expedited discovery in part, proposing instead that the parties be ordered to conduct their Rule 26(f) conference within two weeks, submit their planning report [*2]  and exchange of initial disclosures three days later, and participate in a Rule 16 scheduling conference with the Court four days after that.4 For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants Plaintiff's motion in part and in large part adopts Defendant's proposal.

Plaintiff requests permission "to engage in limited discovery on an expedited basis" to develop "even more evidence justifying a preliminary injunction."5 Plaintiff indicates it would like to serve six requests for production of documents and take Defendant's video deposition, and that any additional discovery necessary for briefing and argument on Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction be granted on an expedited basis.

Defendant argues instead that the Court should follow the same approach used in Biomin Am., Inc. v. Lesaffre Yeast Corp.6 In Biomin, the plaintiff alleged two of its former employees violated non-competition, non-solicitation, and confidentiality covenants in their employment agreements in the course of working for their current employer. The plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a motion for leave to serve document requests before the parties conducted their Rule 26(f) discovery-planning conference, [*3]  to shorten to 21 days the time for responding to such document requests, and to obtain an expedited Rule 16 scheduling conference with the court. The plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order was denied but Magistrate Judge O'Hara granted in part the plaintiff's request for expedited discovery and set an expedited timeframe for the parties to conduct their Rule 26(f) planning conference and Rule 16 scheduling conference with the Court.

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1), a party may not seek "discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f)" unless authorized by the federal rules, stipulation, or court order. However, the court has discretion to "alter the timing, sequence and volume of discovery."7 Because of this broad discretion, the Court is also "authorized to permit discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference and to shorten the time to respond to interrogatories and document requests to less than 30 days."8 A party seeking expedited discovery in advance of its Rule 26(f) planning conference bears the burden of showing good cause for its requested departure from the usual discovery procedures.9

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79534 *


Prior History: Cgb Diversified Servs. v. Forsythe, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48341 (D. Kan., Mar. 20, 2020)


discovery, expedited, parties, scheduling, requests, preliminary injunction, planning, factors