MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER – PAGE 1 

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

 DALLAS DIVISION 

DFW DANCE FLOORS LLC 

d/b/a CENTER STAGE FLOORS, § 

 § 

 Plaintiff, § 

 § 

v. § Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-01775-N 

 § 

BENJAMIN SUCHIL, et al., § 

 § 

 Defendants. § 

 § 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 

 This order addresses Defendants Benjamin Suchil and Imperial Floors LLC’s 

motion to stay discovery [18] and Plaintiff DFW Dance Floors LLC d/b/a Center Stage 

Floors’s (“Center Stage”) motion to compel inspection [25]. The Court rejects Defendants’ 

argument that Center Stage may not access discovery before identifying the trade secrets 

at issue with “reasonable particularity.” Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants’ motion 

to stay and grants Center Stage’s motion to compel. The Court makes no determinations 

on Defendants’ remaining motions.1

I. ORIGINS OF THE DISPUTE

 Center Stage creates custom dance floors for events, and it formerly employed 

Suchil as its operations manager. Suchil has now started a competing business, Imperial 

Floors, and Center Stage filed this lawsuit alleging that Suchil and his company have 

1

 Defs.’ Mot. Compel [32]; Defs.’ Mot. to Quash [34]; Defs.’ Mot. J. Pleadings [35]. 

Case 3:22-cv-01775-N Document 36 Filed 02/07/23 Page 1 of 6 PageID 401
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER – PAGE 2 

misappropriated its proprietary information. Early in this litigation, the Court entered its 

standard scheduling order [14]. Defendants have resisted providing Center Stage with 

discovery on grounds that Center Stage must first identify its trade secrets at issue with 

reasonable particularity, spawning numerous competing motions. The Court now 

considers Defendants’ motion to stay discovery pending trade secrets identification2

 and 

Center Stage’s motion to compel inspection. 

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Motion to Stay 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 authorizes parties to seek an order staying 

discovery. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c). Courts may grant a stay “for good cause shown” and 

have broad discretion to control discovery. Id.; Petrus v. Bowen, 833 F.2d 581, 583 (5th 

Cir. 1987) (“A trial court has broad discretion and inherent power to stay discovery until 

preliminary questions that may dispose of the case are determined.”). In determining 

whether to exercise that discretion, courts consider “(1) the breadth of discovery sought; 

(2) the burden of responding to that discovery; and (3) the strength of the dispositive motion 

filed by the party seeking a stay.” “A stay of discovery may be appropriate where the 

disposition of a motion to dismiss ‘might preclude the need for the discovery altogether 

thus saving time and expense.’” Von Drake v. Nat’l Broadcasting Co., Inc., 2004 WL 

2

 This is the only remaining operative part of the motion, which originally also sought to 

stay pending resolution of Defendants’ motion to dismiss [8] and requested a protective 

order, as Defendants withdrew their motion to dismiss [26] and a protective order has 

already been entered [29]. 

Case 3:22-cv-01775-N Document 36 Filed 02/07/23 Page 2 of 6 PageID 402
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER – PAGE 3 

1144142, at *2 (N.D. Tex. 2004) (quoting Landry v. Airline Pilots Ass’n Int’l AFL-CIO, 

901 F.2d 404, 436 (5th Cir. 1990)). 

B. Motion to Compel 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 also allows parties to “obtain discovery 

regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and 

proportional to the needs of the case.” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). Information within the 

scope of Rule 26(b) “need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Id. A litigant 

may request to documents or enter onto land or other property when the subjects of 

inspection are relevant per Rule 26(b) and are in the responding party’s “possession, 

custody, or control.” FED. R. CIV. P. 34(a). 

To enforce discovery rights, a “party seeking discovery may move for an order 

compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection.” FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a)(3). 

The party opposing the motion then must demonstrate with specificity why the discovery 

is irrelevant, overly broad, burdensome, or oppressive. McLeod, Alexander, Powel & 

Apffel, P.C. v. Quarles, 894 F.2d 1482, 1485 (5th Cir. 1990); see also Merrill v. Waffle 

House, Inc., 227 F.R.D. 475, 476 (N.D. Tex. 2005). Courts construe relevance broadly, as 

a document need not, by itself, prove or disprove a claim or defense or have strong 

probative force to be relevant. Samsung Elecs. Am. Inc. v. Yang Kun Chung, 321 F.R.D. 

250, 280 (N.D. Tex. 2017). 

III. THE COURT DENIES DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY

 Defendants argue that Center Stage must identify its trade secrets with “reasonable 

particularity” before accessing discovery, but has not; thus, allowing any discovery would 

Case 3:22-cv-01775-N Document 36 Filed 02/07/23 Page 3 of 6 PageID 403
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER – PAGE 4 

be overly burdensome because none is owed. The Court disagrees that such a prerequisite 

applies. 

 “Neither Texas nor Fifth Circuit law requires pre-discovery identification.” United 

Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. Mitek Sys., Inc., 289 F.R.D. 244, 248 (W.D. Tex. 2013) (cleaned up); 

see also MCR Oil Tools, LLC v. SPEX Offshore, Ltd., 2018 WL 4362695, at *4 (N.D. Tex. 

2018). Instead, courts have broad discretion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 “to 

adopt special procedures for managing complex issues in litigation.” Dewolff Boberg & 

Assocs., Inc. v. Pethick, 202 WL 3904687, at *1 (N.D. Tex. 2022) (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 

16(c)(2)(L)). Pre-discovery identification may be warranted where the action involves 

“complex issues, multiple parties, difficult legal questions, or unusual proof problems.” 

FED. R. CIV. P. 16(c)(2)(L); see, e.g., StoneEagle Servs., 2013 WL 9554563 (involving 

patent infringement claims and several other related lawsuits); Mitek, 289 F.R.D. 244 

(involving claims that defendant infringed plaintiff’s patent on software that it licensed to 

defendant). 

 Defendants may not rely on the fact that these procedures have been available in 

other trade secrets cases; they must explain why “ordinary discovery procedures will prove 

inadequate to the task in this case.” Polydyne Software, Inc. v. Celestica Int’l, Inc., 2014 

WL 12479201, at *3 W.D. Tex. (2014). However, there is no indication that interrogatories 

would fail to elicit the desired information.3

 This Court follows other decisions from this 

3

 At the time of this motion, no discovery deadlines for Plaintiff had yet passed. As of the 

date of this Order, Plaintiff has served answers and objections to Defendants’ 

Interrogatories, and it has shown continuing efforts to provide complete information 

through discovery mechanisms. Defs.’ Mot. Compel ¶ 18. 

Case 3:22-cv-01775-N Document 36 Filed 02/07/23 Page 4 of 6 PageID 404
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER – PAGE 5 

district in declining to require particularized identification where “the sufficiency of 

Plaintiff's pleadings regarding this claim and any related discovery issues are better suited 

for resolution in the context of” a Rule 12 motion or the normal discovery process. Dewolff 

Boberg & Assocs., 2022 WL 3904687, at *2. 

 Defendants’ argument for good cause turns on Center Stage’s ability to access 

discovery generally, and the Court concludes the issue in Center Stage’s favor. Because 

Defendants have not additionally explained why any specific discovery would be overly 

broad, burdensome, oppressive, or irrelevant, Quarles, 894 F.2d at 1485, the Court 

concludes that Defendants have not shown good cause for a stay and accordingly denies 

the motion. 

IV. THE COURT GRANTS CENTER STAGE’S MOTION TO COMPEL

 In Center Stage’s first set of discovery requests, it made several requests for 

inspection. Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production and Inspection, Pl.’s App. Supp. 

Mot. Compel 7–8 [25-1]. Defendants objected and refused to permit inspection, 

maintaining its argument that Center Stage must identify its trade secrets. Pl.’s Mot. 

Compel ¶¶ 10–11. 

 The Court has rejected the basis for Defendant’s objection, and Defendant has not 

responded to Center Stage’s motion with some other reason that the requested inspections 

are overly broad, burdensome, oppressive, or irrelevant. Quarles, 894 F.2d at 1485. 

Accordingly, Defendants have not carried their burden as the opposing party, and the Court 

grants Center Stage’s motion to compel. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, 

Defendants must permit Center Stage to enter the premises at 4111 US Hwy 80, Suite 308, 

Case 3:22-cv-01775-N Document 36 Filed 02/07/23 Page 5 of 6 PageID 405
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER – PAGE 6 

Mesquite, TX 75150, to inspect, measure, survey, photograph, test, and/or otherwise 

sample the property and objects set forth in Center Stage’s First Set of Requests.4

 Pl.’s 

App. Supp. Mot. Compel 7–8. 

CONCLUSION

 The Court concludes that Center Stage is not required to identify its trade secrets 

with reasonable particularity before accessing discovery and thus denies Defendants’ 

motion to stay. Further, the Court grants Center Stage’s motion to compel inspection. The 

Court makes no finding on the adequacy of Center Stage’s interrogatory responses at this 

time. 

 Signed February 7, 2023. 

 

 

 David C. Godbey 

 Chief United States District Judge 

4

 Subject to other objections to the requests not yet raised by Defendants. Any ambiguity 

should be resolved with reference to the definitions articulated in Center Stage’s First Set 

of Requests. Pl.’s App. Supp. Mot. Compel 4–7. 

Case 3:22-cv-01775-N Document 36 Filed 02/07/23 Page 6 of 6 PageID 406