in the united states district court for the district of delaware

motion (D.I. 31), but rather than filing a brief in opposition to the 12(b)(2) motion, Plaintiff filed
a Motion Seeking Jurisdictional Discovery of Defendants ("motion for jurisdictional discovery")
(D.I. 27). Defendants timely opposed Plaintiffs motion for jurisdictional discovery. 1 While
these motions were pending, Plaintiff filed a separate motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 17 and 25(c)
seeking to substitute Grupo Petrotemex, S.A. de C.V. ("Petrotemex") and DAK Americas LLC
("DAK") with Eastman as plaintiffs with respect to all claims in this action ("the motion for
substitution"). (D.I. 55) The Court heard oral argument on the three fully-briefed motions on
October 12, 2011. (D.I. 71)
This Memorandum Opinion addresses Plaintiffs motion for jurisdictional discovery. 2 For
the reasons discussed below, I GRANT-IN-PART Plaintiffs motion for jurisdictional discovery,
with the scope of any jurisdictional discovery limited to the topics outlined in the accompanying
Order.
I. BACKGROUND
A. The Parties
Plaintiff is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Tennessee. (D.I.
15 at~ 2) Defendant AlphaPet is also a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business
in Alabama. (I d. at~ 3) Defendants IHR and IPR are Dutch corporations with their principal
The Court received and carefully considered a total of five briefs addressing
Plaintiffs motion for jurisdictional discovery. (D.I. 28, 36, 42, 44, & 46)
2
The Court addresses Defendants' 12(b )( 6) motion in a separate Report &
Recommendation. The parties indicated at oral argument that it appeared they had reached
agreement on the issues addressed in the motion for substitution. The parties stated that they
anticipated filing a stipulation with the Court to this effect very soon. (D .I. 71 at 16-18) The
Court will therefore await the filing of this stipulation in lieu of ruling on the motion for
substitution at this time.
2