HOME INSTEAD, INC.
v.
BIDWELL HOME CARE SERVICES, LLC, BIDWELL SERVICE CARE, LLC, WILLIAM BIDWELL, SUSAN BIDWELL, BIDWELL CARE HOLDINGS, INC., JOSEPH BIDWELL, AUDRA ILER-BIDWELL
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In a trademark dispute, the court denied defendants' motion for expedited discovery to depose eight witnesses who submitted declarations in support of plaintiff's pending motion for preliminary injunction. The court found that defendants would have adequate opportunity to cross-examine these witnesses at the preliminary injunction hearing.
The court denied the motion for expedited discovery, finding that defendants did not establish good cause because they will have an adequate opportunity to cross-examine plaintiff's witnesses at the preliminary injunction hearing.
[1] A district court has discretion to order expedited discovery upon a showing of good cause.
[2] Good cause for expedited discovery is assessed by considering whether a preliminary injunction motion is pending, the breadth of discovery sought, the reasons for the req…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A district court has the discretion to order expedited discovery if the party seeking it establishes good cause for such discovery.”
Establishes the standard for granting expedited discovery requests
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Home Instead, Inc. filed a motion for preliminary injunction in a trademark case and submitted declarations from eight individuals in suppor…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Good Cause For Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a trademark case, and the parties are briefing a motion for preliminary injunction. In support of the motion, Plaintiff filed declarations from eight individuals. Defendants now move for expedited discovery to depose these witnesses over the next 45 days. (Doc. 24.) Plaintiff responded in opposition. (Doc. 38.)
Generally, "[a] party may not seek discovery from any source" before a conference has been conducted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). But this timing can be altered. Id. “A district court has the discretion to order expedited discovery if the party seeking it establishes good cause for such discovery.” Centennial Bank v. ServisFirst
Bank Inc., No. 8:16-cv-88-T-36JSS, 2016 WL 7376655, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 29, 2016). “In deciding whether a party has shown good cause, a court considers: (1) whether a motion for preliminary injunction is pending; (2) the breadth of the requested discovery; (3) the reason(s) for requesting expedited discovery; (4) the burden on the opponent to comply with the request for discovery; and (5) how far in advance of the typical discovery process the request is made.” Id.
Considering these factors, the Court will not allow expedited discovery. Although a motion for preliminary injunction is pending (Doc. 16), Defendants can subpoena these witnesses for the evidentiary hearing, which the Court will set by separate notice. Since Defendants will have an opportunity to crossexamine Plaintiffs witnesses, which is the basis for the discovery motion, delaying consideration of the motion or preliminary injunction is not warranted. Accordingly, the Defendants' motion (Doc. 24) is DENIED.
ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on October 7, 2025.
Kyle C. Dudek United States District Judge