COURT OF CHANCERY 

OF THE 

STATE OF DELAWARE

JOSEPH R. SLIGHTS III

VICE CHANCELLOR

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 determination 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 the 
Soo 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 offer 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 Dismiss, 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 terminate 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 Investments 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 sufficient 
Soo Hyun Kim v. Coupang, LLC f/k/a Forward Ventures, LLC

C.A. No. 2020-0772-JRS

January 22, 2021

Page 3

justification 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