Altera Corporation v. Mosaid Technologies Inc.

Filing 40

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CONDUCT EXPEDITED JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY 26 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 5/21/2012)

1
2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5
No. C 12-0342 SI

ALTERA CORPORATION,
6

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO CONDUCT EXPEDITED
JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY

Plaintiff,
7
v.
8
9

MOSAID TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
and LSI CORPORATION,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Defendants.

/

11
12

Plaintiff Altera Corporation (“Altera”) has filed a Motion for Leave to Conduct Expedited

13

Jurisdictional Discovery in this patent-related suit. See dkt. 26. In defendant MOSAID’s earlier-filed

14

Motion to Dismiss, MOSAID argues that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over it. See dkt. 35.

15

Altera seeks discovery in order to establish that MOSAID has sufficient contacts with California to

16

establish personal jurisdiction. See Pl.’s Mot at 2. To that end, Altera has propounded numerous

17

interrogatories, requests for production (“RFPs”), and Rule 30(b)(6) deposition topics related to

18

MOSAID’s California contacts. See Pl.’s Mot., Exs. E-G.

19

MOSAID does not oppose jurisdictional discovery, but opposes the scope of Altera’s requests.1

20

MOSAID offers its California tax returns, a 30(b)(6) deponent, and evidence summarizing MOSAID’s

21

California contacts – including MOSAID’s licensing activity in California, MOSAID’s patent licensing

22

agreements with California entities, MOSAID’s travel to California, and whether MOSAID has

23

marketed or sold flash memory products in California. Altera rejects the offer of summaries as

24

sufficient, and requests the raw data and underlying documents propounded in its requests.

25
26
27
28

1

MOSAID also argues that this Court need not reach this discovery dispute, because it should
transfer the case to the Eastern District of Texas, where it is involved in other litigation related to the
patents-in-suit. MOSAID fully briefs that argument in its motion to dismiss. See dkt. 35. The Court
declines to entertain the transfer request at this time, as Altera has yet to respond. The Court will
address the transfer motion along with the motion to dismiss.

“Discovery should ordinarily be granted where pertinent facts bearing on the question of

2

jurisdiction are controverted or where a more satisfactory showing of the facts is necessary.” Laub v.

3

U.S. Dept. of Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003), (citing Butcher's Union Local No. 498 v.

4

SDC Inv., Inc., 788 F.2d 535, 540 (9th Cir.1986)). Although a refusal to grant discovery to establish

5

jurisdiction is not an abuse of discretion when “it is clear that further discovery would not demonstrate

6

facts sufficient to constitute a basis for jurisdiction,” discovery should be granted when the jurisdictional

7

facts are contested or more facts are needed. See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Wells Fargo Express Co., 556

8

F.2d 406, 430 n. 24 (9th Cir.1977) (holding that district court abused its discretion in refusing to grant

9

discovery on jurisdictional issue); see also Natural Res. Def. Council v. Pena, 147 F.3d 1012, 1024

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

1

(D.C.Cir.1998) (remanding to permit jurisdictional discovery when allegations indicated its likely

11

utility).

12

Here, MOSAID’s central assertion is that providing the requested discovery would be unduly

13

burdensome. However, MOSAID has indicated that it is in the process of producing summaries of the

14

requested information. This suggests that MOSAID has already marshaled the relevant documents and

15

information. In most cases, producing a summary will be more burdensome than simply providing the

16

raw documentation. Moreover, the burden MOSAID faces in producing California-related information

17

cannot be too great in light of its claim that it has limited contacts with California. On the other hand,

18

as indicated by the caselaw, plaintiffs are allowed to pursue jurisdictional discovery to dispute a claim

19

of lack of personal jurisdiction. See Laub, 342 F.3d at 1093.

20

The Court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion to conduct expedited jurisdictional discovery on the

21

topics and documents requested. See Pl.’s Mot., Exs. E-G. The motion to dismiss is currently scheduled

22

for hearing on June 29, 2012. Altera’s opposition should be filed by June 8, 2012, and the reply is due

23

by June 15, 2012.

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27

Dated: May 21, 2012
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

28
2