Opinion
05 Civ. 8546 (PKL) (MHD).
January 26, 2006
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Defendant Cargill Financial Services Corporation has made a letter application for a stay of discovery pending the filing and adjudication of a forum non conveniens motion. We deny the request.
This is not the first time that defendant has sought such a stay. Both the District Court and we have denied those earlier applications based principally on the proffer by plaintiffs of a need for expedition in adjudicating the merits of their claims, as well as the absence of a compelling showing of prejudice by defendant. The current application is premised on the purported discovery of evidence so compelling in its nature as to demonstrate the meritlessness of plaintiffs' claims — at least insofar as they seek specific performance — and the resultant absence of any purported need for a prompt decision on the merits of the case. (See Jan. 18, 2006 letter to the Court from Randall E. Kahnke, Esq.).
We see no basis, at the outset of discovery, to make any evaluation of the likelihood of success either of the case or of defendant's as-yet unfiled dismissal motion. The snippets of evidence proffered have not been shown to be dispositive of either the motion or the case, and in the absence of fuller disclosure, any assessment on either front would be both premature and highly speculative.
Defendant also fails, once again, to demonstrate any compelling reason for staying discovery. Although discovery will be fairly extensive, its fruits — particularly document production as well as out-of-state witness testimony — will presumably be needed in the litigation of this case whether it is finally adjudicated here or, as defendant apparently wishes, in the United Kingdom. We note as well the unrebutted proffer by plaintiffs that significant discovery must take place in the United States, and that will presumably be the case whether or not the lawsuit proceeds in this forum.
Although a stay of discovery is often appropriate pending resolution of a potentially dispositive motion, we conclude that this is not such a case. Accordingly, defendant's application for a stay is once again denied.
At our January 6, 2006 conference, we directed that discovery be conducted on a fairly expedited basis. We expect that the parties will comply with that directive. We further emphasize that, since no stay has been granted, the parties are to proceed now — if they not yet done so — with their discovery without further delay.