*1 Before the Court is Plaintiffs Stacia Travis and Justin Camp's Motion to Lift Stay. (ECF No. 47). Separate Defendant Asus Computer International filed a response (ECF No. 55), which Separate Defendants Simplo Technology USA Logistic Company, Ltd. and Best Buy Stores, L.P. have adopted by reference and joined in. (ECF Nos. 53, 55). Separate Defendant Samsung SDI America, Inc. has also adopted and joined in that response, and has filed a separate response as well. (ECF No. 54). The Court finds the matter ripe for consideration.

This case arises from a house fire that occurred on November 12, 2017, resulting in the death of Linda Charmel Camp. The fire was allegedly caused by a laptop computer and its component parts. On April 3, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a wrongful death and products liability lawsuit in the Garland County Circuit Court against Asus Computer International; Best Buy Stores, L.P.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Simplo Technology USA Logistic Company, Ltd., for their various alleged roles in the design, manufacturing, assembly, marketing, distribution, and sale of the laptop.

On May 7, 2018, that case was removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Hot Springs Division, and assigned case number 6:18-cv-6042 (“Travis I”).[1] Travis I was initially presided over by the Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, and later, by the Honorable Billy Roy Wilson. On April 29, 2019, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in Travis I and, on June 4, 2019, voluntarily dismissed their claims against Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Simplo Technology USA Logistic Company, LTD. The discovery period in Travis I ended on August 1, 2019, and trial was set for October 22, 2019. After the Travis I court ruled on numerous dispositive motions and motions in limine, the parties filed their pretrial disclosures on September 24, 2019. On October 2, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint to add AsusTek Computer Inc.; Simplo Technology Co., Ltd.; and Samsung SDI Co., Ltd. as defendants, or alternatively, for leave to dismiss the case without prejudice. On October 8, 2019, Judge Wilson granted the motion to the extent that it sought voluntary dismissal and dismissed Travis I without prejudice.

On October 10, 2019, Plaintiffs filed this wrongful death and products liability case. The allegations and claims in this case largely resemble those in Travis I. However, Plaintiffs have added AsusTek Computer Inc.; Simplo Technology Co., Ltd.; and Samsung SDI Co., Ltd. as defendants. They also appear to have also added Samsung SDI America, Inc. as a defendant in lieu of Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

Plaintiffs have served Defendants Samsung SDI America, Inc.; Simplo Technology USA Logistic Company, Ltd.; Asus Computer International; and Best Buy Stores, L.P. (collectively, the “American Defendants”), all of which have appeared and filed responsive pleadings. To date, Plaintiffs have not served Defendants AsusTek Computer Inc.; Simplo Technology, Ltd.; and Samsung SDI Co., Ltd. (collectively, the “Foreign Defendants”). Plaintiffs recently sought and received an extension of time in which to serve the Foreign Defendants. Plaintiffs are currently attempting service on the Foreign Defendants and have until early August 2020 to demonstrate perfected service on them.

*2 On December 13, 2019, the Court granted a motion to stay the deadlines set out in this case's Initial Scheduling Order until all Defendants have been served. The Court reasoned that judicial economy would best be furthered by waiting until all Defendants have appeared in the case so that the parties would not have to conduct multiple Rule 26(f) conferences and the Court would not have to potentially reset discovery deadlines if the Foreign Defendants belatedly enter the case. Accordingly, the Court did not issue a stay but, rather, lifted the deadlines in the Initial Scheduling Order and stated that the parties should request the entry of a new Initial Scheduling Order once all Defendants have entered the case.

On April 22, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion, asking the Court to lift its stay of discovery and allow Plaintiffs and the American Defendants to proceed with discovery while service is attempted on the Foreign Defendants. The American Defendants oppose the motion.

The instant motion asks the Court to lift the stay of discovery in this case and allow the parties to conduct their Rule 26(f) conference. However, there is no stay currently in place. On December 13, 2019, the Court did not issue a stay, but rather, lifted all deadlines imposed by the Initial Scheduling Order. One such deadline was the date by which the parties must conduct their Rule 26(f) conference, the completion of which ordinarily begins the parties’ discovery period. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). The Court will construe the instant motion as only seeking the entry of a new Initial Scheduling Order because there is no stay to lift.

The Court has the power to “control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). Consequently, the Court enjoys “very wide discretion in handling pretrial discovery.” U.S. ex rel. Kraxberger v. Kan. City Power & Light Co., 756 F.3d 1075, 1082 (8th Cir. 2014).

Plaintiffs concede that much of the necessary discovery for this case was already conducted in Travis I. However, they say that they are prepared to begin focused discovery with the American Defendants regarding their corporate relationship with the Foreign Defendants and their participation in the design, manufacture, marketing, distribution, and supply of the laptop computer at issue. Plaintiffs argue that this course of action would be more efficient than waiting to begin discovery after the Foreign Defendants are served. Plaintiffs also state that each of the American Defendants (other than Best Buy Stores, L.P.) is a wholly owned subsidiary of one of the Foreign Defendants, and as such, Plaintiffs suggest that the American Defendants will presumably keep the Foreign Defendants informed of any discovery that takes place during this time.

In response, the American Defendants argue that allowing discovery to proceed without the Foreign Defendants will present the same risk of judicial inefficiency that caused the Court to lift the deadlines in the first place, namely that the parties will have to conduct multiple 26(f) conferences and various discovery deadlines will likely need to be reset after the Foreign Defendants enter the case. They argue that Plaintiffs have not identified any specific discovery they need from the American Defendants, and thus, have identified no reason for the Court to change its prior ruling and issue an Initial Scheduling Order. They also voice a concern that Plaintiffs will attempt to use the American Defendants as proxies for seeking discovery from the Foreign Defendants.

Upon consideration, the Court agrees that Plaintiffs have not shown good cause for entry of a new Initial Scheduling Order at this time. This case's posture is the same as in December 2019, when the Court lifted the Initial Scheduling Order's deadlines. If the Court allows discovery to proceed at this time, the same possibility exists that the discovery period will likely need to be reset after the Foreign Defendants enter the case.

*3 Moreover, Plaintiffs do not present a compelling justification for allowing staggered discovery between the parties. They concede that they have already conducted most of the relevant discovery they need from the American Defendants in Travis I,[2] but then state that they wish to conduct discovery regarding the American Defendants’ participation in the design, manufacture, marketing, distribution, and supply of the laptop computer at issue. Presumably, that ground would have already been covered in the Travis I discovery, with the possible exception of Separate Defendants Samsung SDI America, Inc. and Simplo Technology USA Logistic Company, Ltd. As to Plaintiffs’ desire to conduct discovery regarding the American Defendants’ corporate relationships with the Foreign Defendants, the Court believes that this can be most efficiently done once the Foreign Defendants have entered the case, allowing Plaintiffs to direct any relevant discovery requests to all Defendants regarding their corporate relationships to one another.

In sum, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not shown good cause to issue a new Initial Scheduling Order at this time and allow the parties to begin discovery without the Foreign Defendants. The same reasons that caused the Court to lift the Initial Scheduling Order still apply here. Consequently, the instant motion should be denied.

For the above-stated reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Lift Stay (ECF No. 47) is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 7th day of May, 2020.

To the extent necessary to resolve the instant motion, the Court takes judicial notice of the docket and filings in Travis I.

With the possible exception of Separate Defendant Samsung SDI America, Inc., which was not a party in Travis I, and Separate Defendant Simplo Technology USA Logistic Company, Ltd., which was named as a party in Travis I but did not appear to have ever been served.