Pl aintif f a lle ges th at De fen dant P IB C “ is th e Uni tes S tat es ba se d s ub si di ary o f [ De fen dant] P etr a B ank [] ”; th at Pe tra 1 Bank “ is a J or dan ian

bank ” and

“ th e p are nt

co m pan y of [D efe nd ant ] P IB C[ ,] ” and th at De fen dant R and ol ph B. O ld is “ Ge ner al Manager of PIBC” and at one time “m anaged PIBC from the bank’s offices in the District of Columbia[,]” the registered address of which is “ [one] of [D efendant] Old’s properties[.]” Compl., ¶¶ 8-10. A. HU DAFA RO UKI, Plaintiff,
v . PETRA INTE RNATION AL BAN KING, CORP., et al., Defendants.

UNITED STA TES DISTRICT C OURT FO R T HE DI ST RI CT OF CO LU MB IA

Civil Action No. 08-2137 RJL/DAR

ME MOR

AN DU M OP IN ION
BACKGROUND Pl aintif f i s th e f ound er o f Am eri can

Expo rt G rou

p Inter natio na l S erv ice s, Inc
. (“A EG IS ”). Co m

pla int (D oc um ent N o. 1), ¶¶ 7 -8. Pl aintif f a lle ge s th at i n 1 98 6, AE GI S s ecu red a loan from Def

endant Petra Banking Interna tional Corpor ation (“PI BC”), for which Plaintiff 1 personall y guaranteed pa yment. Com pl., ¶ 2. Plaint iff alleges thatbetween 1989 and 1993, he sat isf ied the ter m s o f b oth

the rel eas e o f t

he de ed of tru st whic h s ecu

red his pe rso na l gu arante e,
an d th e A EG IS gu arante e, an d th at D ef en dant P IB C r ele ase d th e d eed of tru st and the AE GI S guarantee i n 1990 and 1993, respect ively. Id. , ¶ 4. Plainti ff f urther al leges thatbetween 1993
an d 2 00 7, De fe nd ants m ad e n o e ff ort to c oll ect on the AE GI S g uarantee , b ut i n 2 00 8, en lis ted the adm ini str ati ve ag en cie s o f t he Jo rdanian g ov ernm ent to sei ze p rop erty in Jo rdan b elo ng ingtoFarouki v. Petra Internat ional Banking Corp., etal. 2

him. Id., ¶ 5. On Decem

ber 9, 2008, Plaint iff initiated t he instantaction agai nst Defendants PIBC, Pe tra Bank an d O ld s eek inginj un cti ve rel ief an d a de clarat ory

jud gm ent th at h e w as r ele ase d from the guarant y, and that any efforts t o collectare barr ed by the doctr ine of laches and t he statute of limitations. Compl., ¶¶ 46-66. Plainti ff also brings causes of act ion for “injuri ous falsehood[,]” defam ation and tor tious int erference agai nst Defendant Old. Id ., ¶¶ 67-80. On Fe bru ary 17 , 2 00 9, De fe nd ant P IB C ans we red the co m pla int , and

ge ne ral ly d en ied the all eg ati on s an d p led

the af fi rm ati ve de fe nses of

fa ilure t o s tat e a c lai m

up on wh ich rel ief can be grante d and

that th e co m

pla int is b arr ed bythe statut e o f f

rau ds . Ans we r of

De fe nd ant P etr a Internat ional Banking Corp. and Counter claim of Def endant Petra Internat ional Banking Corp. (“Def. PIBC’s Answer and Counterclai m”) (Docum ent No. 8) at 8. PIBC also pl ed a countercl aim predicated upon Plai ntiff’s alleged fail ure to sat isfy his obligat ions under the guaranty. Id. , ¶¶

34 -36 . O n th e sam e d ate , a ll thre e D ef en dants fi led

a m oti on to d ism iss
. Defendants Petra Bank and Old moved to dismiss the complaint in it s entire ty. Se e Motion of Defendants to Dismiss Counts III, I V, V, VI and VII of the Com plaint and M otion of Randolph B. Ol d and

Pe tra Bank to D ism iss the Co m

pla int in i ts E nti rety (“ De fs .’ M oti on to D ism iss ”) (Document No. 9) at 1. In the motion, Defendant Petra Bank submits that t he court la cks personal j urisdict ion; Defendant Old all eges that t he court la cks both persona l juris diction, and that venue i s not proper i n this dist rict. Defendant PIBC moves to dismiss Counts III, IV, V, VI and VII for failure t o state a c laim upon which reli ef can be granted. Additionall y, Plaintiff has moved to dismiss Defendant PIBC’s counterclai m on the ground that t he statut e of limitations has run, a nd for leave to amend his complaint.Farouki v. Petra Internat ional Banking Corp., etal. 3

Memorandum

of Points and Authoriti es in Support of Countercl aim Def endant A. Huda Farouki’s Mot ion to Dismiss Counterclai m (Docum ent No. 13) at 1; M emorandum of Points and Authoritie s in Support of Plaint iff’s Motion to Amend Com plaint ( “Pl.’s Moti on to Amend Com plaint”) (Document No. 15) at 1. Bo th m oti on s to dis m iss , and the co m panio n m oti on

fo r le av e to am en d th e co m pla int , have be enfu llybri ef

ed . Is su es w ithres pe ct t o th is c ourt’ s juris dic tio n – pe rso na l an d s ub

jec t matter – are prese nted in all three motions. Se e , e.g. , Defs.’ Motion to Dismiss at 22 (“ [t]he Co m pla int fa ils to m ak e a p rim a f

aci a sh ow ing that pe rso na l juris dic tio n e xis ts o ve r [ Pe tra Bank ]” ); P l.’ s Mo tio n to Di sm iss at 1 0 (“ PI BC ’s b rea chof co ntr act cla im ag ain st [ Pl aintif

f] is tim e – barre d” ); P l.’ s Mo tio n to Am en d C om pla int at 2 (“the Am en de d C om pla int ser ve [s ] t o
su pp lem en t th e b ase s f

or t he Co urt ’s e xe rci se o f p ers on al j uri sd ict ion ov er P etr a B ank and

Mr. Ol d[ .] ”). Five motions are pending in whic h the conduct of discove ry is addre ssed. Two of the fi ve are m oti on s to co m

pe l di sco ve ry: De fe nd ant P IB C m ov es t o c om pe l P lai nti ff

to ans we r Interr ogatory No. 3 and to produc e the documents responsive to its Requestfor Production of Docum ents Nos. 2 and 3; Plai ntiff seeks to compel responses from Defendant PBIC to several of Plaintiff’s reque sts for producti on of docum ents. Se e Mem orand um of De fe nd ant P etr a Internat ional Banking Corp. in Suppor t of its Moti on for an Order to Compel Discovery (“Def. PIBC’s Motion to Compel”) (Document No. 30) at 2-4; Plai ntiff’s Memorandum in Support of Mo tio n to Co m

pe l D isc ov ery

fr om Pe tra Int ern ati on al B ankin g C orp . (“ Pl .’s Mo tio n to Com pel”) (Document No. 35) at 7-10. Th e p art ies fr om

wh om dis co ve ry i s so ug ht h av e f ile d o pp os iti on s to the m oti on s. InFarouki v. Petra Internat ional Banking Corp., etal. 4

D efe nd ant

P BI C, bef

or e m ov in g f

or a s tay o f j ur is di cti on al di sc ov ery, s ou ght t o c om pel di sc ov ery f

ro m P lai nt iff
. 2 Ho we ver , D efe nd ant

P BI C m aintai ns th at th e d is cov ery i t s eek s to co m pel is re lev ant

n ot to ju ris di cti on , b ut

in st ead , t o Pl aintif f’ s dam age s. See De f. PI BC ’s M ot io n t o C om pel at 4- 5. D efe nd ant

P IB C, in s up po rt of

it s m ot io n f

or pr ot ect iv e o rd er, rel ies in part up on

it s op po si tio n t o P lai nt iff ’s m ot io n t o c om

pel
. Id. at

2; see also Def. PIBC’s M otion for Protective Order at 2. addition, ea ch of the three defendant s has moved to stay j urisdict ional disc overy until the motions to dismiss have been determined. Se e Motion of Defendants Petra Bank and Randol ph B. Ol d to St ayDe fe nd ants’ Ob lig ati on to P rov ide Di sco ve ry Unti l T hir ty D ay s A ft er the Co urt ’s Ru lin g o n D ef

en dants ’ Mo tio n f

or a Pr ote cti ve Or de r (“ De f. Pe tra Bank ’s and

Ol d’s Mo tio n to St ay ”) ( Do cum ent N o. 23 ); M oti on of De fe nd ants P etr a B ank and Rand olp h B . O ld f

or a Protecti ve Order (1) St aying Discovery a s to Them Pending Ruling on Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Juri sdiction a nd Venue; and (2) Requir ing that t he Depositions of Petr a Bank, if any, be Co nd

uc ted at i ts R esi de nc e an d O nly Pl ace of Bu sin ess in Amm an , J ord an(“D ef . P etr a Bank’s and Old’s Mot ion to for Protect ive Order”) (Document No. 24); Motion of Defendant Pe tra Int ern ati on al B ankin g C orp . f or a Pr ote cti ve Or de r S tay ing Juris dic tio na l D isc ov ery Pending Ruling on Moti on to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdi ction and Venue (“ Def. PI BC ’s M oti on

fo r a P rot ect ive Or de r”) (D oc um ent N o. 39 ). 2 Plaintiff opposes each of the t hree motions for a stay of discovery.

DI SC US SI ON Ev alu ati on

of the fi ve pe nd ingm oti on s in wh ich the co nd uc t of dis co ve ry i s ad dre sse d
m us t be gin wi th t he settle d p rop os iti on

that a “ co urt

ha s b roa d d isc ret ion

an d inhe rent po we r to stay d isc ov ery

until pre lim inary q

ue sti on s th at m aydis po se o f t he cas e ar e d ete rm ine d. ” Chavous
v. D. C. Fi n. Resp on sib ili ty & Mgm t. A ssi sta nc e A uth ., 20 1 F .R .D . 1 , 2 (D .D .C . 2 00 1); seeals oFarouki v. Petra Internat ional Banking Corp., etal. 5

The undersigned has reviewed the motions to dismiss and the motion for leave to amend, as well as the memoranda 3 in s up po rt th ere of

an d i n o pp os iti on

th ere to , f or th e s ol e p ur

po se of co ns id eratio n o f t

he contex t i n whi ch th e d is cov ery d is putes arose. The undersigned is mindful that neither motion to dismiss, nor the m otion for leave to amend, have bee n referred to the un der si gn ed, an d t

he un der si gn ed un der

tak es no ev alu ati on

of th e m eri ts of

any of th e t

hr ee. Covad Communications Co. v. Revonet, Inc., 25 0 F .R .D . 1 4, 18 (D .D .C . 2 00 8) ( dis co ve ry s tay ed pending resol ution of the defendant’s motion for judgm ent on the ple adings “in or der to save t he lit igants po tentia llyunne ces sar y d isc ov ery

expe ns es. ”); Instit ut Pasteur v. Chiron Corp. , 315 F. Supp. 2d 33, 37 (D.D.C. 2004) (“The decision whethe r to stay di scovery li es within the sound dis cre tio n o f t

he dis tri ct c ourt[ ]” ; “[ a] cco rdi ng ly, ‘it is w ell settle d th at d isc ov ery is g en era lly considered i nappropriat e while a motion that would be t horoughly disposi tive of the cla ims in the Com plaint i s pending.’”) (citat ions omitted). Co ns ist ent w iththe the se a uth ori tie s, the un de rsi gn ed ha s re vie we d a ll o f t

he m oti on s – the motions to dismiss and for leave to a mend, as well as the motions in which the conductof dis co ve ry i s d ire ctl y a dd

res sed – in ord er t o d ete rm ine the ex tent to wh ich any o f t he dis co ve ry wh ich is at is su e in

eithe r of the m oti on s to co m

pe l is ne ed ed

to p erm it the parti es t o f

urt he r
su pp ort or o pp os e th e p en din g m oti on s to dis m iss
. Cf

. Klugel v. Clough , 252 F.R.D. 53, 56 3 (D.D.C. 2008) (“court would appr opriatel y exercise its disc retion t o stay conside ration of [a motion to com

pel] pending the det ermination of the motion for summary judgm ent [filed by the
sam e p art ies ][ ,] ” whe re m ov ants d id n ot s ug ge st that th eyreq uir ed fu rth er d isc ov ery

in o rde r to support thei r disposit ive motion) (citi ng Chavons , 2 01 F. R. D. at 2 -5)
. De fe nd ant P IB C s ub m its that th e d isc ov ery wh ich is the su bje ct o f i ts m oti on

to c om pe l is
re le va ntto Pl ai nt if

f’ s d ama ge s, if

an y, an d i n a dd it io n, to PI BC’ s d efe ns e a ga in stPl ai nt if f’ s c la im regarding t he statut e of limitations and lac hes. Se e De f. PI BC ’s M oti on to C om pe l at 6-7 ; R ep lyFarouki v. Petra Internat ional Banking Corp., etal. 6

At th e h ear in g c on du cte d b y the un der si gn ed on O cto ber 19 , 2 00 9, cou

ns el fo r t he Pl aintif

f arg ued th at “ al l of [the 4 discovery which is the subject of his m otion to compel] relate[s] at least in some w ay to jurisdiction” and “that there [is] nothing th at [is ] s ol ely m eri ts ba se d.” C ouns el fo r P lai nt iff al so re qu es ted

th at “p rio r t o t

he m ot io n t o d is m is s bei ng ru led up on , P lai nt iff be all ow ed th e o pp or

tuni ty to co nd

uct ju ris di cti on al di sc ov ery.” to P lai nti ff

’s M em orand

um in O pp os iti on

to D ef en dant P etr a Inter

natio na l B ankin g C orp oratio n’s Mo tio n to Co m

pe l D isc ov ery

(“D ef . P IB C’ s R ep ly t o D ef

. P IB C’ s Mo tio n to Co m

pe l”) (D oc um en t N o. 34 ) at

1, 8. Pl aintif

f, in t he m em orand

um in s up po rt o f h is m oti on , s ub m its that
cer tai n o f h is r eq

ue sts fo r pr od

uc tio n “ are tai lor ed

to y iel d in fo rm ati on

rel ev ant to [h is] jur isd ict ion al a lle gatio ns [, ]” wh ile oth ers are [a lso ] “ rel ev ant to the m eri ts o f [ his ] c lai m s ag ain st PIBC[.] ” Pl.’s Moti on to Compel at 7. 4 Ac co rdi ng ly, the un de rsi gn ed fi nd s th at o f t

he tw o p art ies wh o h av e m ov ed to c om pe l dis co ve ry, it i s o nly

Pl aintif f who ha s su gg est ed

a n eed fo r di sco ve ry w ithres pe ct t o a m att er – personal j urisdict ion – which is the subject of a pending di spositive motion. More specificall y, Pl aintif f s ub m its that “[ i] f g ranted , D ef en dants ’ Mo tio n [ to s tay

jur isd ict ion al d isc ov ery ] w ill prejudice Plaintiff in his opposi tion to Defendant’s motion to dismiss. If discovery is st ayed, Pl aintif f w ou ld h av e n o a

bil ityto s up ple m ent hi s juris dic tio na l al leg ati on s in the Am en de d Co m pla int .” Pl aintif

f’ s Me m orand

um in O pp os iti on

to D ef en dants ’ Mo tio n to St ayDi sco ve ry (“Pl.’s Opposit ion to Defs.’ Motion t o Stay”) (Document No. 27) at 3. Pl aintif f f urt he r su bm its that he is “ entit led ” to “juris dic tio na l di sco ve ry[ .] ” Se e Pl aintif f’ s Mem orand

um in O pp os iti on

to D ef en dants ’ Mo tio n f

or a Pr ote cti ve Or de r (D oc um ent N o. 26 ) at 9 (“ [T ]o the ex tent . . . th at i ns uf fi cie nt j uri sd ict ion al f

act s h av e b een

ple d to date, Pl aintif

f .
. . is
en tit led to . . . jur isd ict ion al d isc ov ery be fo re the Co urt

wo uld dis m iss Pl aintif

f’ s ac tio n a s to Pe tra Bank an d M r. O ld. ”); Pl .’s Op po sit ion to D ef s. ’ Mo tio n to St ayat 3 (“[ A] [p ]l aintif f h as aFarouki v. Petra Internat ional Banking Corp., etal. 7

right to di scover thi s type of information.”); Plaint iff’s Memorandum In Opposition t o Motion of Petra Int ernationa l Banking Corp. for a Protect ive Order (Document No. 41) at 6 (“ha ving made thi s p rim a f

aci a sh ow ingthat juris dic tio n . . . is a pp rop riate . . . [h e] is e nti tle d to jur isd ict ion al discovery.”)
. De fe nd ants d o n ot d isp ute the ge ne ral pro po sit ion that a c ourt h as d isc ret ion to p rov ide fo r “jurisdi ctional di scovery.” Defendants appe ar to concede that “[t]he vast majority of the dis co ve ry s erv ed

byPl aintif

f .
. . is d ire cte d tow ard

pe rso na l juris dic tio n and ve nu e[ ,] ” ( seeDef. Pe tra Bank ’s and

Ol d’s Mo tio n to St ayat ¶ 2), but su

bm it that P lai nti ff

ha s f ail ed to d em on str ate that any of the dis covery which he see ks would establi sh jurisdi ction. Se e Re ply of De fe nd ants Pe tra Bank an d R an do phB. Ol d to Pl aintif f’ s O pp os iti on

to D ef en dants ’ Mo tio n to St ay (Document No. 28) at 2 (“[Plaintiff] has not even come forward with an . . . explanati on of how the request ed discovery would e stablis h jurisdi ction.”); Reply of Defendants Petra Bank and Randolph B. Old to Plainti ff’s Mem orandum in Opposition to Defendants’ Mot ion Protect ive Order (Document No. 29) at 6 (“[Plainti ff] has not [] com e close to meeting his burden of making a d eta ile d s ho wi ng of

the sp eci fi c f

act s whic h th e re qu est ed

dis co ve ry i s expe cte d to pro du ce which would establi sh personal j urisdict ion over [Defendant Petra Bank].”); Repl y of Defendant Pe tra Int ern ati on al B ankin g C orp . to Pl aintif f’ s O pp os iti on

to P etr a Inter

natio na l B ankin g C orp .’s Mo tio n f or P rot ect ive Or de r (D oc um ent N o. 43 ) at 1 (“ jur isd ict ion al d isc ov ery

sh ou ld b e d en ied
on the gro un ds that [ ] i s it

pre m ature[ .] ”). Th e D istric t of

Co lum bia Ci rcu it h as h eld

that “i f a partyde m on str ate s th at i t can
su pp lem en t it s juris dic tio na l al leg ati on s throu ghdis co ve ry, the n ju ris dic tio na l di sco ve ry i s jus tif ied .” GTE New Media Services, Inc . v. Bell South Corp. , 1 99 F. 3d 13 43 , 1 35 1 (D .C . C ir.Farouki v. Petra Internat ional Banking Corp., etal. 8

20 00 ) (c itatio n o m itt ed ); seeals o T heUrba n In sti tute v. FI

NC ON Se rvi ces , No. 09-00572, 2010 W L 3 39 09 1, at * 6 (D .D .C . F eb ruary 1 , 2 01 0) ( “A lth ou ghdis co ve ry i s g en era llyto b e “f ree ly pe rm itt ed ,” jur isd ict ion al d isc ov ery “is jus tif ied on ly i f t he pla int if

f r eas on ab lel y ‘d em on str ate s that it can su pp lem ent it s juris dic tio na l al leg ati on s throu ghdis co ve ry. ’”) (ci tat ion om itt ed ); cf Na va b-S afa vi v . B ro ad

ca sti ng Bd . o f G ov ern or

s , 650 F. Supp. 2d 40, 50 (D.D.C. 2009) (to satisfy the burden of proving per sonal juri sdiction, a plainti ff “is entitled t o reasonable discovery i f the pla int if f r eq ue sts it[ ]” ; su cha re qu est m aybe m ad e “t

hro ug h m oti on

or whe n d ef

en din g a ga ins t a motion to dismiss.”) (citat ion and internal quotati ons omitted). Th is C irc uit ’s s tan dard f

or p erm itt ing jur isd ict ion al d isc ov ery is “ qu ite lib era l.” Da vis v. Grant Park Nursing Home LP , 6 39 F. Su pp . 2 d 6 0, 75 (D .D .C . 2 00 9) ( cit ati on om itt ed ); seeals o Diamond Chem. Co. v. Atonfina Chemicals, Inc ., 26 8 F . S up p. 2d 1, 15 (D .D .C . 2 00 3) ( pla int if f i s entitl ed to juri sdictiona l discovery “even though [p]laintiff has not made out a prima facie case of jur isd ict ion

as r eq uir ed byoth er j uri sd ict ion s[. ]” ) (c itatio ns om itt ed ). H ow ev er, “in ord er t o g et jur isd ict ion al d isc ov ery

a p lai nti ff

m us t have at l eas t a g oo d f

aith b eli ef that su chdis co ve ry w ill
en ab le i t to sh owthat th e co urt ha s p ers on al j uri sd ict ion ov er the de fe nd ant.” Id . at 15 (quoti ng Caribbean Broad. Sys., Ltd. v. Cable & Wirele ss PLC , 1 48 F. 3d 10 80 , 1 09 0 (D .C . C ir. 19 98 )). In an exerci se of the court’ s broad discr etion to manage the conductof discovery, Defendant PIBC’s motion to com pel will be de nied. While Defendants’ motion to dismiss is not
en tir ely dis po sit ive , th e und ers ign ed fi nd s th at P IB C’ s d isc ov ery req ue sts can be m ore narro wl y fr am ed , a nd any d isc ov ery

dis putes m ore ef

fe cti ve ly r eso lve d, af

ter all thr esh old

jur isd ict ion al issues have be en resolved a nd the identi ties of the par ties to t he ligati on determined. For the same reason, Plaintiff’s motion to compel will be denied wit h respect t o the request s forFarouki v. Petra Internat ional Banking Corp., etal. 9

production of documents which relat e solely t o the merits of the parti es claims and defenses. However, Plaintiff’s motion to compel will be grant ed with respec t to the r equests for pro du cti on

of do cum ents whic h c on cer n ju ris dic tio na l di sco ve ry. In o rde r to ide nti fy tho se req ue sts , th e und ers ign ed

ha s re vie we d a ll o f t

he req ue sts ( seeDo cum ent N o. 35 -3) ; co ns ide red Plaintiff’s effort to dis tinguish t he requests which relat e solely t o jurisdi ctional di scovery from tho se whic h a lso rel ate to t he m eri ts (seePl .’s Mo tio n to Co m pe l at 6-1 0), an d e va luated De fe nd an t P IB C’ s o pp os iti on to P lai nti ff

’s m oti on to c om pe l ( seeMemorandum

of Defendant Pe tra Int ern ati on al B ankin g C orp . In Op po sit ion

to P lai nti ff

’s M oti on to C om pe l D isc ov ery (Document No. 38) at 4-12). Having done so – in t he context of the ent ire rec ord herein, including t he pending motions to dismiss – the unders igned finds that Reques t for Production Nos. 1 (limited to PIBC’s operat ions, if any, in the Dis trictof Colum bia), 5 (l imited to Defendant Ol d’s em plo ym ent by

PI BC , if at a ll, in t

he Di str ict

of Co lum bia ), 1 1, 12 an d 1 3 (q

ua lif ied to limit the “busines s activi ties” which a re the subj ect of the reques t to those c onducted in the Districtof Colum

bia) are of m ost imm ediate r elevance t o the juri sdictiona l issues pr esented her e. Ac co rdi ng ly, the un de rsi gn ed wi ll g rant P lai nti ff

’s m oti on to c om pe l w ithres pe ct t o th os e req ue sts (as m od if

ied ); p erm it a

rea so na ble pe rio d f

or D ef en dant P BI C t o p rod

uc e th e d oc um ents responsive t o those reques ts, and, in al l other r espects, deny Pl aintiff’s motion to compel. The motions to stay discovery filed by Defendants Petra Bank and Old wil l be grante d, and the motionFarouki v. Petra Internat ional Banking Corp., etal. 10

to stay dis covery filed by Defendant PBIC will be de nied. An order is filed c ontemporaneously.

____________/S/________________ DEBOR AH A. RO BINSON United States Magistr ate Judge