Reported / Citable
Background
Plaintiffs ABC IP, Inc., LAD, LLC, and Lawrence DeMonico sued defendants Spider Hole, LLC, Spike’s Tactical, LLC, and Michael Register in the Western District of Texas. The defendants filed an amended motion to dismiss in January 2026, which plaintiffs opposed in February. Subsequently, defendants filed a motion to stay discovery and an emergency motion for a protective order in May 2026. The magistrate judge noted that defendants’ delay in filing the protective order motion appeared to lack substantial justification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(B), which requires the moving party to certify that they have in good faith attempted to obtain the nonmoving party’s consent or that the moving party has made a good faith effort to resolve the dispute.
A hearing was held on June 30, 2026, with all parties appearing through counsel. The magistrate judge addressed the pending motions and established procedures for the next steps in the litigation.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge granted plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) to add (1) the parties’ domicile information, where relevant, and (2) the defendants’ contacts with Texas relevant to the court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction. The court set a deadline of July 10, 2026 for filing the amended complaint.
Recognizing that the defendants’ delay in filing the protective order motion appeared unjustified, the court granted defendants’ request to submit a brief addressing whether their Motion to Stay Discovery and Emergency Motion for Protective Order was “substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust” under Rule 37(a)(5)(B). Defendants must file their brief by July 10, 2026, and plaintiffs may respond by July 17, 2026. Both briefs are limited to five pages.
Key Takeaways
- Plaintiffs obtained leave to amend their complaint to include domicile information and defendants’ Texas contacts, addressing potential personal jurisdiction issues.
- The court signaled concern about defendants’ unjustified delay in filing the protective order motion, suggesting potential fee-shifting under Rule 37(a)(5)(B).
- Defendants must now brief whether their delayed motion was substantially justified; if not, plaintiffs may recover expenses incurred in opposing it.
- The case remains in the procedural stage with jurisdictional pleading refinement and discovery disputes still being resolved.
Why It Matters
This order reflects the court’s management of motion practice and signals that defendants’ strategic delay in seeking a protective order may have consequences. The requirement that defendants justify the delay under Rule 37(a)(5)(B)—which imposes a duty on parties to make good faith efforts to resolve discovery disputes before seeking court intervention—indicates the court’s willingness to sanction unnecessary motions. For plaintiffs, the opportunity to amend the complaint to include domicile and jurisdictional contact information suggests the court was prepared to address any potential personal jurisdiction deficiencies before ruling on the motion to dismiss.
The order also illustrates how magistrate judges manage complex civil disputes in federal court, coordinating multiple pending motions and establishing clear briefing schedules to move litigation forward efficiently. The July deadlines set by the court will determine whether plaintiffs can cure any jurisdictional pleading gaps and whether defendants must pay for the expense of defending against their own delayed protective order motion.