ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO CONDUCT JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY

Re: Dkt. No. 23

KANDIS A. WESTMORE, Magistrate Judge.

On August 19, 2019, Plaintiff Allan D. Bombita requested a 45-day extension of time to file his opposition to the pending motion to dismiss to conduct jurisdictional discovery. (Dkt. No. 23.) On August 20, 2019, Defendant Maersk Line, Limited filed an opposition, in which it recognized that district courts have broad discretion to permit or deny jurisdictional discovery, but that Plaintiff has provided no rational reason for allowing such discovery. (Dkt. No. 27 at 2.) In reply, Plaintiff explained that he intends to seek discovery regarding Defendant's recruiting practices. (Dkt. No. 28 at 5-6.)

Thereafter, the request to conduct jurisdictional discovery, as well as all other discovery matters in this case, were referred to the undersigned. (Dkt. No. 29.)

In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff's request to conduct jurisdictional discovery pertaining to Defendant's recruitment practices is GRANTED, and he shall have 45 days from the date of this order to conduct discovery. Should disputes arise pertaining to the scope of discovery, the parties shall meet and confer in an attempt to resolve these disputes without court intervention. If they are unable to do so, the parties shall file a joint letter that complies with the undersigned's standing order.

Notwithstanding, Plaintiff is advised that the Court will not hesitate to enter a protective order or quash a subpoena that is overreaching or that it believes is not noticed in good faith. For example, based on the information provided, it does not appear that information regarding The Standard Club — Defendant's insurance carrier — is relevant to jurisdictional discovery, and, without more information, the Court would be inclined to quash a deposition subpoena for its manager, Charles Taylor. (See Decl. of James F. Kuhne, Jr., Dkt. No. 27-1 ¶ 4.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.