Plaintiffs Oppose HP's Motion to Stay Discovery in Ink Cartridge Suit
By requesting a “blanket stay of discovery,” HP seeks to bring an antitrust class action involving its ink cartridges “to a standstill,” said the plaintiffs’ memorandum Tuesday (docket 1:24-cv-00164) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago in support…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
of their opposition to HP's motion for a discovery stay. The plaintiffs contend that HP shows no good cause under Rule 26(c)(1). They cite Dickson v. Chicago Allied Warehouses in which the court found that such motions won't be granted "unless the party seeking the stay makes a strong showing why discovery should be denied.” HP challenges the adequacy of all claims in the complaint, but concerns about potential costs associated with antitrust discovery “is not tantamount to an automatic prohibition on discovery in every antitrust case where defendants challenge the sufficiency of a complaint,” said the memorandum, citing New England Carpenters Health & Welfare Fund v. Abbott Labs. Plaintiffs’ claims involve “complex antitrust law that will require detailed and thoughtful analysis,” said the filing, but the case doesn’t “'present an unusually thorny or difficult set of factual issues to be explored’ so as to make discovery abnormally burdensome or expensive,” it said. HP complains about the burdensome nature of the plaintiffs’ anticipated discovery “even though ‘the parties have not even discussed the discovery’” they intend to request, it said. “Simply put, HP has not carried its burden to overcome the general rule that discovery stays are ‘heavily disfavored.’”