Bloom Golf Partners LLC v. Ridgeway

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BLOOM GOLF PARTNERS LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
RACHEL RIDGEWAY,
Defendant.
No. 4:25-CV-02470
(Chief Judge Brann)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
J ANUARY 5, 2026
On December 19, 2025, Plaintiff Bloom Golf Partners LLC (“Bloom”) filed a
six-count complaint against Defendant Rachel Ridgeway (“Ms. Ridgeway”).1 Three
days later, Bloom filed a motion for expedited recovery discovery requesting a narrow
order requiring a response to an interrogatory and potentially the inspection of digital
evidence.2 Ms. Ridgeway filed a brief in opposition to the motion on January 5, 2026.3
The motion is now ripe for disposition; for the reasons that follow, it is granted.
I. 	FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Bloom is a consulting firm that helps golf “clubs and organizations identify,
attract, and retain top talent.”4 In April 2025, Bloom hired Ms. Ridgeway as a search
1 	Doc. 1 (Compl.).
2 	Doc. 4.
3 	Doc. 9. The Court is aware that this brief was filed today and has examined it thoroughly.
However, throughout the brief are citation errors that make it impossible to locate cases cited
to. There are also incorrect restatements of case holdings that render it difficult to evaluate the
veracity of the claims asserted by the Defendant. As a result, the Court is unable to give the
brief any weight in its consideration of the issues presented.
4 	Doc. 1 ¶ 7.
Case 4:25-cv-02470-MWB Document 11 Filed 01/05/26 Page 1 of 10

2
executive and HR consultant.5 In this role, she helped Bloom’s clients “find and
maintain candidates for key leadership roles, including club managers and golf course
superintendents.”6 As an employee, “she was given access to a company laptop, a
company email account, and access to internet-based shared files/folders, which
contained confidential and proprietary company data.”7
Shortly after she came on at the company, Ms. Ridgeway and Bloom began to
discuss 	“expanding 	the 	company’s 	services 	into 	professional 	development 	and
coaching services.”8 As a result of these conversations, Bloom “facilitated Ridgeway
developing materials and concepts for professional development and coaching services
to be supplied by Bloom Golf Partners.”9 She spent time and company resources to
develop proposals for this expansion.10 However, in September 2025, Ms. Ridgeway
began to “discourage[]” Bloom from providing the additional services.11 Relying on
that advice, Bloom tabled the plans.12
Around the same time that Ms. Ridgeway began to discourage Bloom from
entering the professional development and coaching services space, she “separately
formed her own, competing business, known as Ridgeway Coaching & Consulting.”13
5 	Id. ¶ 9.
6 	Id.
7 	Id. ¶ 11.
8 	Id. ¶ 14.
9 	Id. ¶ 15.
10 	Id. ¶ 16.
11 	Id. ¶ 17.
12 	Id.
13 	Id. ¶ 18.
Case 4:25-cv-02470-MWB Document 11 Filed 01/05/26 Page 2 of 10

3
She created this sole proprietorship without informing Bloom, and while still employed
by them.14 Bloom believes that she was utilizing their confidential and proprietary
information to further her new competing business.15
In late September 2025, Bloom learned of Ms. Ridgeway’s new company.16 She
was confronted on September 29, 2025, but denied using the company’s resources to
compete with Bloom.17 She was terminated as a Bloom employee on October 6, 2025.18
Immediately 	following 	her 	termination, 	Ms. 	Ridgeway 	accessed 	Bloom’s
“shared files on an internet-based cloud services and … deleted hundreds of company
documents.”19 Of particular importance, she deleted a spreadsheet entitled “Sales
Outreach Contact List,” which was a compilation of “over 2,500 golf clubs, private
clubs, resorts, and industry professionals.”20 This document was the living product of
years of work , money, and relationship-building and was a key tool of their business.21
Ms. Ridgeway was the last company employee to access the Contact List, when she
downloaded it on September 30, 2025.22 In addition to the hundreds of company
documents she allegedly deleted, she also “deleted thousands of emails from her
company email account.”23 Finally, before returning her company-issued laptop, she
14 	Id. ¶ 21.
15 	Id.
16 	Id. ¶ 22.
17 	Id. ¶ 23.
18 	Id. ¶ 24.
19 	Id. ¶ 25.
20 	Id. ¶ 27.
21 	Id. ¶¶ 28, 30.
22 	Id. ¶ 32.
23 	Id. ¶ 36.
Case 4:25-cv-02470-MWB Document 11 Filed 01/05/26 Page 3 of 10

4
performed a factory reset on the device.24 This removed all of Bloom’s data from the
computer and prevented them from being able “to see if any external data storage
devices had been used by Ridgeway on the laptop to download company files.”25
II. 	LAW
In general, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) dictates that “[a] party may
not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by
Rule 26(f).”26 “However, courts have broad discretion to manage the discovery process
and can expedite or otherwise alter the timing and sequence of discovery.”27
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has “remained silent”
on the issue of what standard to apply to a motion for expedited discovery.28
Nevertheless, two prevailing standards have emerged among district courts in the circuit
that have addressed this issue: “(1) the injunctive relief standard and (2) the good cause
standard.”29 While both standards have been applied by various district courts, the good
cause or reasonableness standard has become the “prevailing approach.”30 Given that
24 	Id. ¶ 38.
25 	Id. ¶ 39.
26 	FED. R. CIV. P. 26(d)(1).
27 	Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 3:24-CV-1642, 2024 WL 4900017, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Nov.
26, 2024).
28 	Bizzell Corp. v. Tripwire S., LLC, No. 1:25-CV-680, 2025 WL 2211473, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Aug.
4, 2025).
29 	Id.; see also Leone v. Towanda Borough, No. 3:12-0429, 2012 WL 1123958, at *2 (M.D. Pa.
Apr. 4, 2012).
30 	Flatiron Crane Operating Co., LLC v. Adkins, No. 5:23-CV-02396-JMG, 2023 WL 4565470,
at *3 (E.D. Pa. July 17, 2023); see also Bizzell Corp., 2025 WL 2211473, at *4 (“The good
cause standard is … more frequently applied.”).
Case 4:25-cv-02470-MWB Document 11 Filed 01/05/26 Page 4 of 10

5
there has been no motion for injunctive relief in this case and that the majority of other
jurisdictions have adopted the good cause approach, I will also apply it in this case.31
Under the good cause approach, “the party seeking expedited discovery must
demonstrate that its ‘request is reasonable in light of the relevant circumstances.’”32
This asks a district court to “weigh the need for discovery at an early juncture in the
litigation against the breadth of the discovery requests and the prejudice to the
responding party.”33 Courts have found good cause to exist “where the plaintiff’s need
for expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the
possible prejudice or hardship to the defendant.”34 Generally, the factors to consider
under this approach are: “(1) the timing and context of the discovery requests, including
whether a preliminary injunction hearing has been scheduled; (2) the scope and purpose
of the requests; and (3) the nature of the burden to the respondent.”35
31 	Kone Corp. v. ThyssenKrupp USA, Inc., No. CIV.A. 11-465-LPS, 2011 WL 4478477, at *4
(D. Del. Sept. 26, 2011).
32 	Spark Orthodontics v. ORMCO Corp., No. CV 21-2841, 2021 WL 7908194, at *1 (E.D. Pa.
Oct. 25, 2021) (quoting Bath Auth., LLC v. Anzzi LLC, No. 18-00834, 2018 WL 5112889, at
*9 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 19, 2018)).
33 	Kone Corp., 2011 WL 4478477, at *4.
34 	Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 3:24-CV-1642, 2024 WL 4900017, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Nov.
26, 2024).
35 	Kone Corp., 2011 WL 4478477, at *4.
Case 4:25-cv-02470-MWB Document 11 Filed 01/05/26 Page 5 of 10

6
III. 	DISCUSSION
In the present case, the circumstances favor granting expedited discovery and a
finding that Bloom has satisfied the reasonableness standard. The good causes that
Bloom offers in support of the motion are twofold: (1) that the claims alleged in the
complaint show a pattern of extensive destruction of evidence and (2) that without the
company documents, Bloom’s business cannot operate.36 Both of these arguments are
particular to the circumstances at hand and demonstrate the important purposes of the
motion. Additionally, the scope of the request is extremely limited in nature. This is not
the case where an overbroad request has been made; here, each piece of evidence sought
to be discovered is extremely detailed and limited.37As another district court in this
circuit has said “[t]he purpose of expedited discovery is to allow a party obtain specific,
limited, and identifiable pieces of information, particularly when there is some risk of
spoliation or when the suit cannot reasonably proceed without the information.”38 Here,
the scope and purpose of the request perfectly fits the intended goal of allowing
expedited discovery. As such, the second factor strongly favors granting the motion.
The burden to the respondent also counsels in favor of granting the motion. There
is a very small burden in having to answer a single interrogatory. While producing any
items or accounts that contain the documents in question would burden Ms. Ridgeway,
36 	Doc. 5, at 14-15.
37 	See Flatiron Crane Operating Co., LLC v. Adkins, No. 5:23-CV-02396-JMG, 2023 WL
4565470, at *4 (E.D. Pa. July 17, 2023).
38 	Id. (quoting Let Them Play Mn v. Walz, 517 F. Supp. 3d 870, 889 (D. Minn. 2021)).
Case 4:25-cv-02470-MWB Document 11 Filed 01/05/26 Page 6 of 10

7
there is no basis to conclude that it would be in anyway an extreme burden.
Additionally, there is a reasonable possibility that the materials are not in her
possession, in which case the only burden to the respondent would be answering a single
interrogatory. Given the extremely limited nature of any search of her devices or
accounts, there is no reason to believe that granting this motion would unreasonably or
unduly burden Ms. Ridgeway.39
Finally, the timing of the requests needs to be considered. While the Court admits
that litigation does not move fast, Bloom did not move expeditiously in this case. The
alleged destruction and stealing of materials took place on, or just after, October 6,
2025.40 This case and the motion for expedited discovery were not filed until late
December.41 The sense of urgency that Bloom demonstrated in this case “does not
align” with the urgency they request in the instant motion.42 Additionally, when there
is no preliminary injunction pending the timing factor can be found to weigh against
granting expedited discovery.43 This factor is not outcome determinative, but the Court
must note that it weighs against granting the motion.44
39 	The Court also wishes to remind Plaintiff and their counsel that the rules of discovery still
apply in this case. See FED. RS . CIV. P. 1, 26(b). The parties are expected to be reasonable in
the administration of this order, as they should be with the administration of all discovery.
40 	Doc. 1 ¶ 24.
41 	See Docs. 1, 4.
42 	See Flatiron Crane Operating Co., LLC, 2023 WL 4565470, at *3.
43 	See id. at *4; Better Packages, Inc. v. Zheng, No. 05-447, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30119, at
*15 (D. N.J. May 17, 2006) (denying request for expedited discovery where “there is no
pending preliminary injunction hearing for which the parties need to prepare that would make
expedited discovery necessary.”).
44 	See Flatiron Crane Operating Co., LLC, 2023 WL 4565470, at *4.
Case 4:25-cv-02470-MWB Document 11 Filed 01/05/26 Page 7 of 10

8
In sum, two factors support granting expedited discovery and one does not. But,
as previously stated, good cause exists “where the plaintiff’s need for expedited
discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the possible
prejudice or hardship to the defendant.”45 That is just the case we have here. The need
to prevent spoliation of evidence and to allow Bloom to continue to operate its
business—the needs for expedited discovery—far outweigh the limited hardship that
could arise if the motion were granted. As such, Bloom has satisfied the good cause
standard and the specific circumstances in this case demonstrate a need for expedited
discovery.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Bloom’s motion for expedited discovery is granted.
However, the Order below is extremely narrow and is to be strictly followed by the
parties. Despite the Court concluding that the motion for expedited discovery is
reasonable in this case, the Court believes it is necessary to incorporate some
protections to avoid any unintended consequences of the viewing of Ms. Ridgeway’s
devices and accounts.46 The following Order is not intended to be allow an unfettered
expedition into the discovery she provides.47Any unauthorized actions in the limited
discovery should be reported to the Court in a timely fashion.
45 	Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 3:24-CV-1642, 2024 WL 4900017, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Nov.
26, 2024).
46 	See id. at *4.
47 	See id.
Case 4:25-cv-02470-MWB Document 11 Filed 01/05/26 Page 8 of 10

9
V. 	ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. 	Within 7 business days of the date of this Order, under FRCP 33,
Defendant shall answer the following interrogatory: Identify all devices
and accounts within Defendant’s possession, custody, or control capable
of storing Word, PDF, or Excel files, including, but not limited to, any
phones, computers, external hard drives, USB drives, or email/online
storage accounts (e.g., Gmail, Google Drive, Dropbox, etc.);
2. 	Within 7 days of the delivery of the answer to the above referenced
interrogatory, under FRCP 34(a)(1), Defendant shall produce and make
the devices and accounts listed on the inventory available for imaging.
The imaging shall be conducted by a vendor hired by Plaintiff. The parties
will coordinate to ensure that the transfer of the devices and accounts is
made to that vendor. The costs for the vendor shall be paid by Plaintiff;
3. 	Plaintiff’s vendor shall search the imaged devices and accounts only for
those files, or derivatives thereof, identified in Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s
Brief in Support of the Motion.
4. 	If any such files are found, the vendor shall be permitted to share only
those files with Plaintiff.
5. 	The vendor shall preserve only those documents listed in the above-
mentioned Exhibit A. Other images of the devices and accounts are not to
Case 4:25-cv-02470-MWB Document 11 Filed 01/05/26 Page 9 of 10

10
be preserved or produced to the Plaintiff, absent agreement of the parties
or further order of the Court.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
Chief United States District Judge
Case 4:25-cv-02470-MWB Document 11 Filed 01/05/26 Page 10 of 10