IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN DIVISION 

QU-SOFT LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v . 

DOMINION SIDING, INC., 

Defendant. 

Civil Action No.: 1:20-CV-00640-LY 

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY PENDING ITS MOTION TO 

DISMISS AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT 

Defendant, Dominion Siding, Inc. ("Dominion"), by and through counsel, respectfully 

requests a reasonable stay on discovery until the Court resolves its pending Motion to Dismiss 

for lack of personal jurisdiction and venue or motion to transfer, in the alternative to dismissal. 

The issues raised in the motion to dismiss have been fully briefed by both parties and are 

ripe for resolution. Staying discovery for a limited time is in the best interest of judicial 

efficiency and economy and prevents Dominion from suffering undue hardship. And it will not 

result in prejudice to Plaintiff. Therefore, the Court should grant Dominion's Motion to Stay 

Discovery. 

"A trial court has broad discretion and inherent power to stay discovery until preliminary 

questions that may dispose of the case are determined." Geraci v. City of Austin, No. 1:19-CV340-LY-SH, 2019 WL 6050728, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 14, 2019) (quoting Petrus v. Bowen, 833 

F.2d 581, 583 (5th Cir. 1987)). A stay of discovery may be issued to "protect a party or person 

from annoyance, embarrassment, or undue burden or expense." Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 

574, 598 (1998); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) (2020); Geraci, 2019 WL 6050728, at *1. In 

determining whether a stay of discovery is appropriate, "a court must balance the harm produced 

{02096553.1 } {02096553.1 } 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN DIVISION 

QU-SOFT LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DOMINION SIDING, INC., 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No.: 1:20-CV-00640-LY 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY PENDING ITS MOTION TO 

DISMISS AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT 

Defendant, Dominion Siding, Inc. (“Dominion”), by and through counsel, respectfully 

requests a reasonable stay on discovery until the Court resolves its pending Motion to Dismiss 

for lack of personal jurisdiction and venue or motion to transfer, in the alternative to dismissal. 

The issues raised in the motion to dismiss have been fully briefed by both parties and are 

ripe for resolution. Staying discovery for a limited time is in the best interest of judicial 

efficiency and economy and prevents Dominion from suffering undue hardship. And it will not 

result in prejudice to Plaintiff. Therefore, the Court should grant Dominion’s Motion to Stay 

Discovery. 

“A trial court has broad discretion and inherent power to stay discovery until preliminary 

questions that may dispose of the case are determined.” Geraci v. City of Austin, No. 1:19-CV340-LY-SH, 2019 WL 6050728, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 14, 2019) (quoting Petrus v. Bowen, 833 

F.2d 581, 583 (5th Cir. 1987)). A stay of discovery may be issued to “protect a party or person 

from annoyance, embarrassment, or undue burden or expense.” Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 

574, 598 (1998); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) (2020); Geraci, 2019 WL 6050728, at *1. In 

determining whether a stay of discovery is appropriate, “a court must balance the harm produced 
by the delay in discovery against the possibility that the motion will be granted and entirely 

eliminate the need for such discovery." Geraci, 2019 WL 6050728, at *1 (citing Bickford v. 

Boerne Indep. Sch. Dist., 2016 WL 1430063, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 8, 2016)). 

Here, staying general discovery is in the best interest of judicial efficiency and economy 

and will keep the parties from incurring an undue substantial burden. Beginning discovery prior 

to ruling on whether personal jurisdiction exists would impose undue burden and expense on the 

parties. When a motion to dismiss may dispose of the need for any discovery, a motion to stay is 

appropriate. See Tostado v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., No. SA-09-CV-543-XR, 2009 WL 

4774771, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 11, 2009). Dominion's Motion to Dismiss seeks dismissal for 

lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, a transfer of the entire case. If the Court dismisses 

the case, there is no need for discovery, and if it transfers, another court will set any discovery 

deadlines. Either dismissal or transfer disposes of the need for discovery. 

Plaintiff will not suffer prejudice if the court issues a reasonable stay of discovery. See, 

e.g., DSM Desotech Inc. v. 3d Sys. Corp., No. 08 CV 1531, 2008 WL 4812440, at *3 (N.D. Ill. 

Oct. 28, 2008) (finding that hardship to the plaintiff is only present when there is a "compelling 

need for prompt discovery—as there might be if, for example, provisional relief were being 

sought or if testimony needed to be preserved due to the ill health of a witness"). Here, there is 

no threat of destruction of evidence; Dominion has implemented a litigation hold and Plaintiff 

has not moved for a preliminary injunction. There are no known impending deaths or illnesses 

of any parties or witnesses. Therefore, there is no basis to push forward with discovery, and it 

would be just and appropriate for the Court to exercise their discretion to stay discovery for a 

reasonable time. 

{02096553.1 } {02096553.1 } 2 2 

by the delay in discovery against the possibility that the motion will be granted and entirely 

eliminate the need for such discovery.” Geraci, 2019 WL 6050728, at *1 (citing Bickford v. 

Boerne Indep. Sch. Dist., 2016 WL 1430063, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 8, 2016)). 

Here, staying general discovery is in the best interest of judicial efficiency and economy 

and will keep the parties from incurring an undue substantial burden. Beginning discovery prior 

to ruling on whether personal jurisdiction exists would impose undue burden and expense on the 

parties. When a motion to dismiss may dispose of the need for any discovery, a motion to stay is 

appropriate. See Tostado v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., No. SA-09-CV-543-XR, 2009 WL 

4774771, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 11, 2009). Dominion’s Motion to Dismiss seeks dismissal for 

lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, a transfer of the entire case. If the Court dismisses 

the case, there is no need for discovery, and if it transfers, another court will set any discovery 

deadlines. Either dismissal or transfer disposes of the need for discovery. 

Plaintiff will not suffer prejudice if the court issues a reasonable stay of discovery. See, 

e.g., DSM Desotech Inc. v. 3d Sys. Corp., No. 08 CV 1531, 2008 WL 4812440, at *3 (N.D. Ill. 

Oct. 28, 2008) (finding that hardship to the plaintiff is only present when there is a “compelling 

need for prompt discovery—as there might be if, for example, provisional relief were being 

sought or if testimony needed to be preserved due to the ill health of a witness”). Here, there is 

no threat of destruction of evidence; Dominion has implemented a litigation hold and Plaintiff 

has not moved for a preliminary injunction. There are no known impending deaths or illnesses 

of any parties or witnesses. Therefore, there is no basis to push forward with discovery, and it 

would be just and appropriate for the Court to exercise their discretion to stay discovery for a 

reasonable time. 
Dominion respectfully requests the Court grant its motion for a stay of discovery pending 

the determination of its Motion to Dismiss. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Stephen J. Zralek 

Stephen J. Zralek, admitted pro hac vice 

szralek@bonelaw.com 

BONE McALLESTER NORTON PLLC 

511 Union Street, Suite 1600 

Nashville, TN 37219 

(615) 238-6305 Telephone 

(615) 687-2763 Facsimile 

James R. Ray III 

Texas Bar No. 24079746 

jray@munsch.com 

Connor D. Best 

Texas Bar No. 24097374 

cbest@munsch.com 

MUNSCH HARDT KOPF & HARR, P.C. 

Hartland Plaza 

1717 West 6th Street, Suite 250 

Austin, TX 78703 

(512) 391-6100 Telephone 

(513) 391-6149 Facsimile 

Counsel for Defendant 

{02096553.1 } {02096553.1 } 3 3 

Dominion respectfully requests the Court grant its motion for a stay of discovery pending 

the determination of its Motion to Dismiss. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Stephen J. Zralek 

Stephen J. Zralek, admitted pro hac vice

szralek@bonelaw.com 

BONE McALLESTER NORTON PLLC 

511 Union Street, Suite 1600 

Nashville, TN 37219 

(615) 238-6305 Telephone 

(615) 687-2763 Facsimile 

James R. Ray III 

Texas Bar No. 24079746 

jray@munsch.com 

Connor D. Best 

Texas Bar No. 24097374 

cbest@munsch.com 

MUNSCH HARDT KOPF & HARR, P.C. 

Hartland Plaza 

1717 West 6th Street, Suite 250 

Austin, TX 78703 

(512) 391-6100 Telephone 

(513) 391-6149 Facsimile 

Counsel for Defendant 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on the 17th day of August, 2020, I electronically submitted the foregoing 

document with the clerk of court for the United States District Court for the Western District of 

Texas, using the ECF system of the Court. I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

instrument was served upon all counsel of record, by email, electronic e-service, fax or certified 

mail, as follows: 

Timothy Cleveland, Esq. 

Scotty G. Arbuckle III, Esq. 

CLEVELAND TERRAZAS PLLC 

4611 Bee Cave Road, Suite 306B 

Austin, Texas 78746 

/s/ Stephen J. Zralek 

{02096553.1 } {02096553.1 } 4 4 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on the 17th day of August, 2020, I electronically submitted the foregoing 

document with the clerk of court for the United States District Court for the Western District of 

Texas, using the ECF system of the Court. I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

instrument was served upon all counsel of record, by email, electronic e-service, fax or certified 

mail, as follows: 

Timothy Cleveland, Esq. 

Scotty G. Arbuckle III, Esq. 

CLEVELAND TERRAZAS PLLC 

4611 Bee Cave Road, Suite 306B 

Austin, Texas 78746 

/s/ Stephen J. Zralek