Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_20-cv-00047/USCOURTS-azd-2_20-cv-00047-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:0045 Federal Trade Commission Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Federal Trade Commission,

Plaintiff,

v. 

James D. Noland, Jr., et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-20-00047-PHX-DWL

ORDER 

On January 28, 2020, Defendants filed an emergency motion to take expedited

discovery related to Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) pending request for a 

preliminary injunction. (Doc. 53.) Specifically, Defendants seek an order (1) compelling 

the FTC to make four of its witnesses available for depositions before the preliminary 

injunction hearing, which is scheduled for February 12, 2020, and (2) compelling the FTC 

“to provide written responses” to an undefined set of “written discovery propounded by 

the Defendants within 5 calendar days after service of such discovery.” (Id. at 4-5.) 

Defendants also seek to prohibit the FTC “from presenting any evidence at the Preliminary 

Injunction Hearing” if the FTC fails to meet these obligations. (Id.) The FTC opposes the 

motion, arguing that the discovery sought by Defendants is overly broad, unnecessary, and 

not an “emergency” because the FTC had offered to meet-and-confer on discovery matters 

but Defendants instead opted for court intervention. (Doc. 58.) For the following reasons, 

Defendants’ motion will be granted in part and denied in part. 

To obtain expedited discovery, a party must demonstrate good cause. Semitool, Inc. 

Case 2:20-cv-00047-DWL Document 59 Filed 01/30/20 Page 1 of 3
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D. Cal. 2002). See also Kulkarni v.

Upasani, 659 Fed. App’x 937, 941 (9th Cir. 2016). “Good cause may be found where the 

need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs 

the prejudice to the responding party.” Semitool, 208 F.R.D. at 276. “In considering 

whether good cause exists, factors courts may consider include: (1) whether a preliminary 

injunction is pending; (2) the breadth of the discovery request; (3) the purpose for 

requesting the expedited discovery; (4) the burden on the defendants to comply with the 

requests; and (5) how far in advance of the typical discovery process the request was made. 

The party seeking expedited discovery in advance of the Rule 26(f) conference has the 

burden of showing good cause for the requested departure from usual discovery 

procedures.” Rovio Entm’t Ltd. v. Royal Plush Toys, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 2d 1086, 1099 

(N.D. Cal. 2012).

These factors weigh against Defendants’ request to depose the FTC’s witnesses

before the preliminary injunction hearing. As an initial matter, Defendants have separately 

filed a motion to compel live testimony at that hearing. (Doc. 56.) Although the Court 

will not prejudge that motion until it receives and considers the FTC’s response, it’s likely 

the request will be granted. If so, Defendants will be able to cross-examine the FTC’s 

witnesses during the hearing. United States v. Gila Valley Irrigation Dist., 31 F.3d 1428, 

1442 (9th Cir. 1994) (“‘On a motion for a preliminary injunction an adequate presentation 

of the facts is necessary. . . . The opposing party must be afforded the opportunity to crossexamine the moving party’s witnesses and to present evidence.’”) (citation omitted). 

Defendants have cited no authority for the proposition that they’re also entitled to depose 

those witness before the cross-examination begins. Moreover, granting Defendants’ 

request would place a substantial burden on the FTC, which would need to prepare for and 

defend four depositions in the short time between now and February 12.

As for Defendants’ request to obtain written discovery from the FTC in advance of 

the hearing, that request will be granted only in part. Notably, Defendants’ motion fails to 

articulate, with any precision, the scope of the written discovery they seek—although 

Case 2:20-cv-00047-DWL Document 59 Filed 01/30/20 Page 2 of 3
- 3 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendants assert they are only seeking “limited expedited discovery” from the FTC (Doc. 

53 at 4), the Court has no way to evaluate this statement because the motion is silent on 

what is (and isn’t) being sought. 

Additionally, the FTC is amenable to providing some written discovery before the 

hearing. Specifically, the FTC has offered to provide “all documents that the FTC received 

in response to subpoenas issued during its investigation,” which “contain all of the 

nonpublic information relied upon by [the FTC’s] forensic accountant,” as well as “all of 

the audio and video recordings . . . obtained during its investigation,” “any transcripts of 

those recordings created at the FTC’s request,” and “all materials referenced in [the FTC’s 

expert witness’s] reliance materials.” (Doc. 58 at 8-9.) The FTC also proposes a timeline 

for delivering those materials, indicating they could all be delivered by February 7, 2020.

These suggestions strike the Court as reasonable, particularly in light of the absence of any 

concrete counter-proposal by Defendants, so the Court will adopt them. Production of 

these materials will enable Defendants to effectively cross-examine any FTC witnesses 

called at the preliminary injunction hearing, which both fulfills Defendants’ rights and 

further obviates the need to depose the FTC’s witnesses before the hearing.

Finally, Defendants request that “if the FTC fails to comply with the requirements 

of [this order], the FTC shall be precluded from presenting any evidence at the Preliminary 

Injunction Hearing.” (Doc. 53 at 5.) The Court declines to prejudge any discovery 

violation. Should a problem occur, the Court will address it as needed. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ emergency motion for leave to 

take limited expedited discovery (Doc. 53) is granted in part and denied in part, as 

discussed above.

Dated this 30th day of January, 2020.

Case 2:20-cv-00047-DWL Document 59 Filed 01/30/20 Page 3 of 3