For the second time in two weeks, Chief Judge Connolly has un-referred a case from a magistrate judge after the parties filed their fifth discovery dispute.
Last time, he scheduled an in-person hearing (rather than the more typical remote hearing) and imposed costs and fees for the losing party. This time, he went further, and threatened a possible trial time penalty if either party takes an unreasonable position.
In Beckman Coulter, Inc. v. Cytek Biosciences, Inc., C.A. No. 24-945-CFC (D. Del.), Chief Judge Connolly had referred all disputes to Magistrate Judge Tennyson just over a year ago. Since then, the parties have brought five discovery disputes, spread out pretty evenly over time:
- Feb. 27, 2025
- Jun. 12, 2025
- Nov. 12, 2025
- Feb. 17, 2025
- Mar. 17, 2025
Shortly after the parties filed the fifth dispute last week, Chief Judge Connolly withdrew the referral and ordered an in-person discovery dispute conference—and noted that the court will not move the date of the in-person hearing:
ORAL ORDER: The Court's February 26, 2025 oral order referring the case to Magistrate Judge Eleanor G. Tennyson for all matters relating to discovery and the protective order is WITHDRAWN. The joint motion for a hearing to resolve discovery disputes (D.I. 265 ) is GRANTED. The Court will hear oral argument in person in Courtroom 4B on April 16, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. on the matters outlined in the joint motion. As both parties have said they are available on April 16, see D.I. 265 at 3, the Court will not agree to move the April 16 argument, though obviously the Court does not oppose canceling the argument if the parties reach an agreement that resolves all the disputes in question.
Beckman Coulter, Inc. v. Cytek Biosciences, Inc., C.A. No. 24-945-CFC (D. Del. Mar. 20, 2026).
The Court noted that the time penalty involves reducing trial time by "an appropriate amount":
The parties should expect that the party that loses a dispute will pay for the costs and fees the winning party incurred in litigating that dispute. The parties should also expect that if the Court decides that a party took an unreasonable position with respect to an issue, the Court will reduce by an appropriate amount the time the Court would have otherwise given that party to try its case.
Id. The Court also recommended the parties meet-and-confer after the briefing, and held that any withdrawal of a motion after April 10—six days before the in-person argument—will be treated as a loss for that party, resulting in the payment of fees:
The withdrawal of a request for relief or of an opposition to a request for relief after April 10, 2026 will be treated by the Court as a loss of the dispute over that request. Thus, the parties would be well-advised to meet and confer between April 6 and April 9. Ordered by Judge Colm F. Connolly on 3/20/2026. (mws) (Entered: 03/20/2026)
Id.
Is two instances in two weeks a pattern? Can we expect similar un-referrals going forward? Were there other factors at play here? Will other judges follow suit? I have no idea. But it's something to keep in mind if you find yourself filing your fifth discovery dispute in a case before Chief Judge Connolly.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
