COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

J OSEPH R. S LIGHTS III

V ICE C HANCELLOR 417 S. State Street Dover, Delaware 19901 Telephone: (302) 739

- 4397 Facsimile: (302) 739

- 6179 Date Submitted: January 15, 2021

Date Decided: January 22 , 2021
Kenneth J. Nachbar, Esquire Alexandra M. Cumings, Esquire Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP 1201 North Market Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Matthew E. Fischer, Esquire Andrew H. Sauder, Esquire Aaron R. Sims, Esquire Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP 1313 North Market Street Wilmington, DE 19801

Re: Soo Hyun Kim v. Coupang, LLC f/k/a Forward Ventures, LLC C.A. No. 2020

- 0772

- JRS
Dear Counsel : I have reviewed the briefing on Defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery (the “Motion”). For reasons explained below, the Motion is granted. The Motion seeks a stay of discovery pending resolution of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. “Absent special circumstances, discovery will normally be stayed pending the det ermination of a motion to dismiss the complaint. ‘Special circumstances’ have been found to include situations where (i) the motion does not offer a ‘reasonable expectation’ of avoiding further litigation, (ii) plaintiff has requested interim relief, and ( iii) the plaintiff will be prejudiced because theSoo Hyun Kim v. Coupang, LLC f/k/a Forward Ventures, LLC C.A. No. 2020

- 0772

- JRS January 22 , 2021 Page 2

information may be unavailable at a later time.” Weschler v. Quad

- C , 2000
WL 33173170, at *1 (Del. Ch. Sept. 12, 2000). Plaintiff opposes the Motion on the ground that the Motion to Dismiss
“does not off er a reasonable expectation of avoiding further litigation” because the Court will likely deny it. But whether vel non the Motion to Dismiss will be granted or denied is not the question on this Motion. The question, instead, is whether the
Motion to Dis miss, if successful , will avoid the need for further litigation.
See Weschler , 2000 WL 33173170, at *1 (Del. Ch. Sept. 12, 2000). The answer to that question is undisputed; the Motion to Dismiss seeks dismissal of all claims.
If successful, it will term inate the litigation. Plaintiff also contends the Motion should be denied since the discovery he seeks will not impose an undue burden. Here again, that is not the standard by which this court reviews applications to stay discovery in the midst of pending dispositive motion practice. See Barton v. Club Ventures Inv estments LLC , 2013 WL 6797407, at *1 (Del. Ch. Dec. 23, 2013) (noting the burden to justify a stay discovery often is “easily met because avoiding unnecessary discovery is usually sufficientSoo Hyun Kim v. Coupang, LLC f/k/a Forward Ventures, LLC C.A. No. 2020

- 0772

- JRS January 22 , 2021 Page 3

jus tification for a stay of discovery pending resolution of a potentially dispositive motion”). Based on the foregoing, I am satisfied the Court should exercise its discretion under Court of Chancery Rule 26(c) to enter a protective order staying discovery until the Court resolves the pending Motion to Dismiss, or until further order of the Court. Given this ruling, the hearing on the Motion scheduled for January 28, 2021 , at 11:00 a.m. is adjourned. IT IS SO ORDERED. Very truly yours, /s/ Joseph R. Slights III