Opinion ID: 4470910
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dental Dynamics’s Discovery Request

Text: Dental Dynamics contends, in the alternative, that even if the present evidence is insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction, it should have been permitted to supplement the record with limited discovery in lieu of having its claims dismissed. We see no merit in this argument. District courts are endowed with broad discretion over discovery, including whether to grant discovery requests with respect to jurisdictional issues. See Budde v. Ling-Temco-Vought, Inc., 511 F.2d 1033, 1035 (10th Cir. 1975). -18- Denials of discovery requests are accordingly reviewed for abuse of discretion. See id. A district court abuses its discretion in denying a jurisdictional discovery request where the denial prejudices the party seeking discovery. Dutcher v. Matheson, 840 F.3d 1183, 1195 (10th Cir. 2016); Sizova v. Nat’l Inst. of Standards & Tech., 282 F.3d 1320, 1326 (10th Cir. 2002). Prejudice exists where “pertinent facts bearing on the question of jurisdiction are controverted . . . or where a more satisfactory showing of the facts is necessary.” Sizova, 282 F.3d at 1326 (quoting Wells Fargo & Co. v. Wells Fargo Express Co., 556 F.2d 406, 430 n.24 (9th Cir. 1977)). The party seeking discovery bears the burden of showing prejudice. See Breakthrough Mgmt. Grp., Inc. v. Chukchansi Gold Casino and Resort, 629 F.3d 1173, 1189 n.11 (10th Cir. 2010). Dental Dynamics fails to carry its burden with respect to showing prejudice. Dental Dynamics points to no relevant facts in dispute. Instead, Dental Dynamics seeks additional discovery based only on speculation that “[l]imited discovery on . . . [Jolly Dental’s] business relationship would likely aid Dental Dynamics in establishing personal jurisdiction.” Aplt. Br. at 23. As we and others have held, pure speculation as to the existence of helpful facts is insufficient, as a matter of law, to constitute the type of prejudice that warrants reversing the district court in the area of discovery management. See Breakthrough Mgmt. Grp., 629 F.3d at 1189–90 (citing with approval Boschetto v. -19- Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding the district court’s denial of a request for jurisdictional discovery was not an abuse of discretion where the request was based on “little more than a hunch that it might yield jurisdictionally relevant facts”)); Dutcher v. Matheson, 840 F.3d at 1195; Leema Enters., Inc. v. Willi, 575 F. Supp. 1533, 1536 (S.D.N.Y. 1983) (denying jurisdictional discovery based on “mere speculation” that jurisdictionally relevant facts existed). Accordingly, we cannot say the district court abused its discretion by denying Dental Dynamics’s request for additional discovery.