*1 Before the Court are defendant Lee Group International, Inc.'s (“Lee Group”) motion to stay discovery and plaintiff PrimeSource Building Products, Inc.'s (“PrimeSource”) motion to compel and for sanctions. PrimeSource alleges that Lee Group wrongly used images and product descriptions of PrimeSource's Grip-Rite concrete curing blanket to sell its own competing Bear Claw Products concrete curing blanket. PrimeSource alleges Lee Group's actions violated 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B), which pertains to false advertising and trademark law, and brings a common law unfair competition claim against Lee Group. Lee Group moves to stay discovery and its initial disclosures pending this Court's decision regarding its motion to dismiss [Doc. Nos. 13 & 14]. PrimeSource moves to compel Lee Group to produce documents and provide initial disclosures, and also moves for sanctions [Doc. No. 19]. Upon consideration, the Court concludes that Lee Group has shown it is entitled to a stay of discovery.

Therefore, the Court GRANTS Lee Group's motion to stay discovery pending its ruling on its motion to dismiss and DENIES PrimeSource's motion to compel and for sanctions.

I.

On January 21, 2020, Lee Group filed a motion to dismiss all of PrimeSource's claims. On February 17, 2020, PrimeSource served fifteen requests for production of documents on Lee Group. In response, a few days later Lee Group filed a motion to stay discovery and its initial disclosures pending this Court's decision regarding its motion to dismiss. On April, 16, 2020, PrimeSource filed a motion to compel and for sanctions, requesting the Court order Lee Group to serve its initial disclosures, produce documents responsive to PrimeSource's first requests for production, and pay PrimeSource's attorney fees incurred by bringing the motion. The Court now considers the pending motion to stay and motion to compel and for sanctions.

II.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), a district court can “make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense,” including a stay of discovery and disclosures. A district court has “broad discretion and inherent power to stay discovery” for good cause “until preliminary questions that may dispose of the case are determined.”[1] In the context of a motion to dismiss, a district court has discretion to stay discovery if the disposition of the motion might preclude the need for discovery altogether.[2] When deciding to issue a stay, some of the relevant factors that inform a court's discretion are the breadth of discovery sought, the burden of responding to such discovery, and the strength of the dispositive motion filed by the party seeking a stay.[3]

III.

*2 Lee Group argues that discovery should be stayed because its dipositive motion is strong and that PrimeSource's discovery requests are overbroad and unduly burdensome. PrimeSource disagrees, arguing that Lee Group has presented no evidence that its discovery requests are overbroad or unduly burdensome and that Lee Group's motion to dismiss is weak. The Court agrees with Lee Group.

The Court finds the factors pertaining to the strength of the motion to dismiss and the undue burden of the discovery requests show the motion to stay should be granted. Regarding the strength of the motion to dismiss, upon a cursory examination, the Court concludes Lee Group's arguments are not frivolous and merit serious consideration.[4] Moreover, if the arguments are valid, then the case will be completely disposed of. For these reasons, the Court finds the strength of the dispositive motion factor met.

Regarding whether the discovery requests are unduly burdensome and overly broad, PrimeSource sent 15 requests for production to Lee Group requesting internal communications, communications with various third parties, contracts, marketing materials, product design, and more. The Court finds that these requests are overly broad and compliance with them would be unduly burdensome on Lee Group, at least with regards to time spent when a potentially dispositive motion to dismiss is pending. The Court also finds that the provision for the request for production itself, which Lee Group provided, is sufficient evidence for this Court to reach its determination on these factors. For these reasons, the Court finds the undue burden and overbroad factors met. As such, the Court concludes all three factors weigh in favor of granting Lee Group's motion to stay discovery.

Lastly, regarding initial disclosures, due to the motion to dismiss potentially disposing the case and given the disclosures' close relationship to the discovery requests above, the Court further grants Lee Group's motion to stay its initial disclosures.[5] The Court anticipates setting a date for initial disclosures, along with other pretrial deadlines, in a scheduling order if it denies the pending motion to dismiss.

IV.

For the reasons stated above, the Court hereby GRANTS Lee Group's motion to stay discovery and initial disclosures pending its ruling on the motion to dismiss. PrimeSource's motion to compel rests on the arguments that Lee Group failed to produce documents in response to its requests for production and failed to serve its initial disclosures. As the Court is granting Lee Group's motion to stay discovery and initial disclosures, this negates Lee Group's obligation to provide these documents and disclosures. As such, the Court hereby DENIES PrimeSource's motion to compel.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of August, 2020.