Real Action Paintball, Inc. v. Advanced Tactical Ordnance Systems, LLC et al

Filing 38

ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James denying without prejudice 33 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Parties are ORDERED to meet and confer in person to determine whether they are able to reach an agreement permitting Plaintiff to conduct limited jurisdictional discovery in connection with Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/22/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

REAL ACTION PAINTBALL, INC.,

Case No. 14-cv-02435-MEJ

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER RE: MOTION TO EXTEND
TIME FOR PURPOSES OF TAKING
DISCOVERY

v.
9
ADVANCED TACTICAL ORDNANCE
SYSTEMS, LLC, et al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Defendants.

Re: Dkt. No. 13, 33

12
13

On July 18, 2014, Plaintiff Real Action Paintball, Inc. filed an Administrative Motion to

14

Extend Time for Purposes of Taking Discovery, pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-3 and 7-11. Dkt.

15

No. 33. In its Motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court extend time to hear Defendants Perfect

16

Circle Projectiles, LLC and Gary Gibson’s pending Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Personal

17

Jurisdiction (Dkt. No. 13). Plaintiff seeks a four-month extension of time to conduct discovery

18

regarding factual claims made by Defendants in their Motion. Defendants have filed an

19

Opposition, in which they argue that Plaintiffs have not requested permission of the Court to serve

20

jurisdictional discovery, and such relief exceeds what is permitted by an administrative motion

21

brought under Local Rules 6-3 and 7-11. Dkt. No. 36. Defendants further argue that they would

22

be prejudiced if they remain parties to an action in a forum to which they have no sufficient

23

contacts.

24

Upon review of the parties’ arguments, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Motion exceeds the

25

scope of relief that can be sought by an administrative motion. However, based on the evidence

26

presented, it is possible that Plaintiff can establish a colorable basis for personal jurisdiction.

27
28

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(2) allows a court to authorize expedited discovery
for “convenience and in the interests of justice.” The standard for authorizing expedited discovery

1

is “good cause,” which “may be found where the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of

2

the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party.” Semitool, Inc. v.

3

Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 275-76 (N.D. Cal. 2002).

4

It is well established that a court may allow discovery to aid in determining whether it has
personal or subject matter jurisdiction. Wells Fargo & Co. v. Wells Fargo Exp. Co., 556 F.2d 406,

6

430 (9th Cir. 1997). “The matter is generally left to the discretion of the trial court.” Laub v. U.S.

7

Dep’t of the Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003). Such discovery “should ordinarily be

8

granted where pertinent facts bearing on the question of jurisdiction are controverted or where a

9

more satisfactory showing of the facts is necessary.” Id. (quoting Butcher’s Union Local No. 498

10

v. SDC Inv., Inc., 788 F.2d 535, 540 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may grant jurisdictional discovery if

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

5

the request is based on more than a “hunch that it might yield jurisdictionally relevant facts,”

12

Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1020, 1020 (9th Cir. 2008), or more than “bare allegations

13

in the face of specific denials.” Terracom v. Valley Nat’l Bank, 49 F.3d 555, 562 (9th Cir. 1995)

14

(citation omitted). In Laub, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of jurisdictional

15

discovery where there was a “reasonable probability” that the outcome of the motion to dismiss

16

would be different if discovery were permitted. Laub, 342 F.3d at 1093.

17

Indeed, it may be an abuse of discretion for a court to deny jurisdictional discovery where

18

such discovery “might well demonstrate” jurisdictionally relevant facts and the plaintiff is denied

19

the opportunity to develop the jurisdictional record. See Rutsky & Co. Ins. Serv., Inc. v. Bell &

20

Clements Ltd., 328 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003); Smug-mug, Inc. v. Virtual Photo Store, LLC,

21

2009 WL 248003, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2009) (granting jurisdictional discovery request

22

“because the existing record is insufficient to support personal jurisdiction and [p]laintiff has

23

demonstrated that it can supplement its jurisdictional allegations through discovery”).

24

In light of Laub, courts in this district have held that a plaintiff need not make out a prima

25

facie case of personal jurisdiction before it can obtain jurisdictional discovery. See eMag

26

Solutions, LLC v. Toda Kogyo Corp., 2006 WL 3783548, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2006)

27

(explaining that “[i]t would . . . be counterintuitive to require a plaintiff, prior to conducting

28

discovery, to meet the same burden that would be required to defeat a motion to dismiss”)
2

1

(quoting Orchid Biosciences, Inc. v. St. Louis Univ., 198 F.R.D. 670, 673 (S.D. Cal. 2001)); Focht

2

v. Sol Melia S.A., 2010 WL 3155826, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2010). Rather, a plaintiff must

3

present only a “colorable basis” for jurisdiction, or “some evidence” constituting a showing lesser

4

than a prima facie case. In re Glenfed, Inc. Sec. Litig., 42 F.3d 1541, 1548 (9th Cir. 1994);

5

Google, Inc. v. Egger, 2009 WL 1228485, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2009); eMag Solutions, 2006

6

WL 3783548, at *2; Focht, 2010 WL 3155826, at *2.

7

Given this low threshold, it is likely that Plaintiff can present a colorable basis for

8

jurisdiction. Accordingly, in an effort to preserve judicial resources and the parties’ resources, the

9

Court ORDERS as follows:
1)

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

The parties shall meet and confer in person to determine whether they are able to

reach an agreement permitting Plaintiff to conduct limited jurisdictional discovery in

12

connection with Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. If the parties are able to reach an

13

agreement, they shall file a stipulation and proposed order regarding the scope of discovery

14

and subsequent briefing schedule on Defendants’ Motion.

15

2)

16

to Civil Local Rule 7.

17

3)

18

STAYED pending resolution of this jurisdictional discovery issue.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

If the parties are unable to reach an agreement, Plaintiff shall file a motion pursuant

The hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is VACATED and all briefing is

20
21
22
23

Dated: July 22, 2014
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

24
25
26
27
28
3