Timothy Clarke Johnston v. Last Mile Capital Partners LLC, et al.

1 WO [5] 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA [8] 9 Timothy Clarke Johnston, No. CV-25-01472-PHX-SHD 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Last Mile Capital Partners LLC, et al., 13 Defendants. [14] 15 Before the Court is Plaintiff Timothy Johnston’s Motion for Expedited Discovery 16 Under Rule 26(D)(1), (Doc. 56), and Motion for Status Conference and Case Management 17 Deadlines, (Doc. 61). The motions will be denied. 18 Ordinarily, parties may not seek discovery before they “have conferred as required 19 by Rule 26(f).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). But when early discovery is in “the interests of 20 justice,” Fed R. Civ. P. 26(d)(2), and good cause is shown, a court may authorize expedited 21 discovery. Mach 1 Air Servs, Inc. v. Mainfreight, Inc., 2015 WL 11181334 , at *1 (D. Ariz. 22 2015). “Good cause may be found where the need for expedited discovery, in 23 consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding 24 party.” Mach 1 Air Servs., 2015 WL 11181334 , at *1 (quotation marks omitted). “Among 25 other factors, courts consider: (1) whether a preliminary injunction is pending; (2) the 26 breadth and purpose of the discovery request; (3) the burden on the defendants to comply 27 with the request; and (4) how far in advance of the typical discovery process the request 28 was made.” Mobile v. Blobalgurutech LLC, 2023 WL 3884994 , at *1 (D. Ariz. 2023). The 1 party seeking expedited discovery “has the burden of showing good cause for the requested 2 departure from usual discovery procedures.” Rovio Ent. Ltd. v. Royal Plush Toys, Inc., 907 3 F. Supp. 2d 1086, 1099 (N.D. Cal. 2012). 4 Johnston seeks eight categories of documents, ranging from “[c]ommunications 5 used to solicit, obtain, or record member votes to remove Plaintiff” to “[a]ll investor 6 communications to AZSL and PSLF members concerning” capital calls, distributions, and 7 admission of new investors, and more. (Doc. 56 at 3.) Johnston also requests two sworn 8 declarations and a preservation order. (Id.) He argues this early discovery is warranted to 9 address Defendants’ argument in the pending motion to dismiss, (Doc. 40), that he has 10 failed to allege sufficient facts demonstrating standing. (Id. at 2.) 11 Johnston has not demonstrated good cause to authorize expedited discovery. There 12 is no preliminary injunction pending in this case and the purpose and breadth of Johnston’s 13 discovery requests do not warrant expedited discovery. Defendants’ motion to dismiss 14 attacks the adequacy of the Second Amended Complaint’s allegations, not the sufficiency 15 of evidence supporting those allegations. (Doc. 59 at 4.) And despite Johnston’s 16 statements that his discovery request is “narrowly tailored,” he seeks broad categories of 17 documents and declarations whose relevance to the standing issue is unclear. Further, 18 Defendants would be prejudiced by Johnston’s discovery requests at this stage of the 19 litigation, where it is not yet evident which claims, if any, will survive the pending motion 20 to dismiss. Accordingly, the Court will deny Johnston’s motion for expedited discovery. 21 The Court will also deny Johnston’s request for a status conference and case 22 management deadlines. (Doc. 61.) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Second Amended 23 Complaint, (Doc. 40), is fully briefed and the Court will resolve it in due course. Unless 24 the Court grants the Motion to Dismiss in its entirety, the Court will conduct a Rule 16 25 Case Management Conference and set discovery deadlines upon resolving that motion. 26 Until then, the Court finds that ordering discovery is improper. 27 Therefore, 28 /// 1 IT IS ORDERED denying Johnston’s Motion for Status Conference and Case || Management Deadlines, (Doc. 61), and Motion for Expedited Discovery, (Doc. 56). 3 Dated this 18th day of February, 2026. [4] 5 / H le Sharad H. Desai 9 United States District Judge [28] _3-