DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court on Defendant VetPharm, Inc.’s (“VetPharm”) motion to stay these proceedings under Rule 41(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure until Plaintiff NewMarket Pharmaceuticals, LLC (“NewMarket”) pays VetPharm’s costs from an action previously filed in the Western District of Missouri.1 Mot., Sept. 30, 2019, ECF No. 10. After reviewing both parties’ briefs on the issues, and hearing oral argument, the Court denies VetPharm’s motion to stay [ECF No. 10]. BACKGROUND NewMarket is a provider of “veterinary pharmaceutical products to improve animals’ health and quality of life.” Compl., 1, May 30, 2019, ECF No. 1. VetPharm is a contract research organization that provides clinical trial support services to pharmaceutical companies that develop new animal health products. Id. at 2. VetBridge Product Development Subsidiary 1 (NM-OMP), LLC (“Investor”), a non-party to this action, is a distributor that contracted with NewMarket to fund the necessary research and applications for government approval in exchange for exclusive rights to distribute a new animal health product NewMarket had in development. Id. at 17. On June 27, 2014, NewMarket contracted with Investor to fund the development of NewMarket’s product for “a projected grand total of $4 million dollars.” Id. at 16, 19. On December 22, 2014, NewMarket contracted with VetPharm to monitor the clinical trials required to obtain government approval for NewMarket’s product. Id. at 23. By March 2016, development costs for NewMarket’s product — including the clinical trials monitored by VetPharm — had exceeded NewMarket’s original budget by approximately $806,000, and NewMarket sought additional funding from Investor. Id. at 31-33. Soon thereafter, a “revised amendment” to the NewMarket- Investor agreement was drafted, and a capital call was issued to Investor’s members to cover the additional $806,000. Id. at 32-33. On March 15, 2016, VetPharm attempted to communicate with several individuals it believed to be associated with Investor. Id. at 38. On March 22, 2016, NewMarket denied Investor permission to speak with VetPharm. Id. at 39-40. As of the date NewMarket filed its complaint in this Court, Investor had declined to provide any further funding to NewMarket. Id. at 41-42. NewMarket alleges that Investor declined to provide additional funding to NewMarket on the basis of information Investor received from VetPharm regarding aspects related to the contract between VetPharm and NewMarket, “including providing characterizations of the confidential clinical trial data.” Id. at 44. The present litigation has been preceded by at least two other pieces of litigation between the parties, and one arbitration. First, the parties have been litigating a contract dispute in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey since 2017 (“NJ Action”). Id. at 4. The district court in the NJ Action stayed the litigation while ordering the parties to arbitration per the terms of their contract. Tr., Mot. Hr’g (“Hr’g Tr.”), 4: 7-17, Jan. 8, 2020, ECF No. 35. In addition, the parties were engaged in litigation in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri after Investor sued NewMarket, and NewMarket sued VetPharm as a third-party defendant (“Missouri Action”). Id. at 16. Investor and NewMarket signed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice on May 30, 2019. That same day, NewMarket filed the complaint presently before this Court, which alleges several causes of action: tortious interference with contract, tortious interference with business relationship, injurious falsehood, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, breach of confidence, negligence, and prima facie tort. Compl., ECF No. 1. On June 4, 2019, NewMarket filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice of its suit against VetPharm in the Missouri Action. Compl. at
