Memorandum opinion and order denying stay of discovery — Womply v. Capital Plus (N.D. Tex. No. 3:21-cv-02636)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division · No. 3:21-cv-02636-B · Doc. 70 · 2022-04-14 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
OTO ANALYTICS, INC. d/b/a
WOMPLY,
§
§
§
     Plaintiff,
§
§
v.
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:21-CV-2636-B
§
CAPITAL PLUS FINANCIAL, LLC,
CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC., and
ERIC DONNELLY,
§
§
§
§
     Defendants.
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants Capital Plus Financial, LLC, Crossroads Systems, Inc., and
Eric Donnelly (collectively the “Capital Plus Defendants”)’s Motion to Stay Discovery by Plaintiff
Oto Analytics, Inc. (“Womply”) (Doc. 60) pending the resolution of their motion to dismiss (Doc.
42). The Capital Plus Defendants argue that their pending “motion to dismiss includes a purely legal
question that could resolve all claims against the Capital Plus Defendants” rendering discovery
“unnecessarily burdensome and expensive” and another pending motion to dismiss filed by other
Defendants “could affect the discovery available . . . and the viability of [the] claims in this Court.”
Doc. 60, Mot. Stay, 1. Because the court finds a stay is unwarranted, the Court DENIES the motion.
A federal district court “may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from
annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense . . . forbidding the disclosure
or discovery.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “A trial court has broad discretion and inherent power to stay
discovery until preliminary questions that may dispose of the case are determined.” Petrus v. Bowen,
833 F.2d 581, 583 (5th Cir. 1987). A stay is the exception, not the rule.  James J. Flanagan Shipping
- 1 -
Case 3:21-cv-02636-B   Document 70   Filed 04/14/22    Page 1 of 2   PageID 1542
Case 3:21-cv-02636-B   Document 70   Filed 04/14/22    Page 1 of 2   PageID 1542

Corp. v. Port of Beaumont of Jefferson Cnty., 2020 WL 4365595, at *1 (E.D. Tex. July 29, 2020); Yeti
Coolers, LLC v. Magnum Solace, LLC, 2016 WL 10571903, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 19, 2016); Griffin
v. Am. Zurich Ins. Co., 2015 WL 11019132, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 18, 2015); Glazer’s Wholesale Drug
Co., Inc. v. Klein Foods, Inc., 2008 WL 2930482 at *1 (N.D. Tex. July 23, 2008). 
First, the Court stated that the interpretation of the Small Business Administration
regulations regarding the Paycheck Protection Program “is dispositive of Womply’s state law claims,”
Doc. 48, Order, 3, but the Court made this determination based on the parties then in the case and
the four claims in Womply’s Original Petition. See Doc. 1-4, Original Pet., ¶¶ 66–89 (listing claims
for fraud, tortious interference with a contract, conversion, and unjust enrichment). Womply later
amended and added additional claims against the Capital Plus Defendants not at issue in the Court’s
earlier order. See Doc. 20, Am. Compl, ¶¶ 116–77, 186–90 (listing claims for declaratory judgment,
tortious interference with contracts, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, promissory estoppel, unjust
enrichment, breach of contract, quantum meruit, and civil conspiracy). Second, the Court resolved
the other motion to dismiss filed by the other set of Defendants, Oto Analytics, Inc. v. Capital Plus
Fin., LLC, 2022 WL 1082368 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 11, 2022), and the parties may still obtain the
necessary discovery from this dismissed party through Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b), 34, and
45. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Capital Plus Defendants’ Motion to Stay.
SO ORDERED.
SIGNED: April 14, 2022.
______________________________
JANE J. BOYLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
- 2 -
Case 3:21-cv-02636-B   Document 70   Filed 04/14/22    Page 2 of 2   PageID 1543
Case 3:21-cv-02636-B   Document 70   Filed 04/14/22    Page 2 of 2   PageID 1543

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.txnd.355114.70.0.pdf

Size

124,825 bytes

SHA-256

52a569a8ef85a0b47641ec451474be7886ae6b4c73bbc0750f69e332e9abadb6

Our copy

gov.uscourts.txnd.355114.70.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)