Hold Security LLC v. Microsoft Inc

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10 HOLD SECURITY, LLC, CASE NO. C23-899 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING STAY 12 v. 13 MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 14 Defendant.

16 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Microsoft Corporation’s (“Microsoft”) Motion to Stay Discovery. (Dkt. No. 40.) Having reviewed the Motion, the Response (Dkt. No. 42), the Reply (Dkt. No. 45), and all other supporting material, the Court GRANTS the Motion.

19 BACKGROUND 20 This case arises out of a contract dispute between Hold Security LLC (“Hold”) and Microsoft. The Court previously granted Microsoft’s Motion to Dismiss and gave Hold thirty days to file an amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 37.) Hold filed its Second Amended Complaint within the timeframe (Dkt. No. 38), and Microsoft again moved to dismiss (Dkt. No. 39).

2 Microsoft now moves for a stay of discovery pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss.

3 ANALYSIS 4 “[D]istrict courts have the inherent authority to manage their dockets and courtrooms with a view toward the efficient and expedient resolution of cases.” Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. 6 40, 47 (2016) (collecting cases). And district courts have wide discretion in controlling discovery, including by staying discovery. See Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988).

9 Given that this is Hold’s second attempt at bringing claims against Microsoft, the Court agrees with Microsoft that a stay is reasonable pending the resolution of the current motion to dismiss. The Court GRANTS the say until the order on the motion to dismiss is posted. If the case moves forward the parties can meet and confer on any discovery that is still relevant and what is relevant to any claims that may remain.

14 The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.

15 Dated March 20, 2024.

A 17 Marsha J. Pechman United States Senior District Judge