AllCells, LLC v. Jack Zhai et al

Filing 31

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen granting in part and denying in part 27 Plaintiff's Motion to Shorten Time. (emclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/13/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ALLCELLS, LLC,
Plaintiff,

8

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME

9

v.

10

JACK ZHAI, et al.,

Docket No. 27

Defendants.

11
12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

Case No. 16-cv-07323-EMC

13

Plaintiff has asked for leave to take expedited discovery in support of its motion for a

14

preliminary injunction. See Docket No. 28 (motion). Currently pending before the Court is

15

Plaintiff’s request for its discovery motion to be heard on shortened time. Having considered the

16

parties’ briefs, the Court hereby GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff’s request for

17

shortened time.

18

Plaintiff has sufficiently established that shortened time is warranted but the timeframe

19

proposed is not reasonable. Accordingly, the Court grants the motion to shorten time but adopts

20

the following schedule:

21



Plaintiff’s motion to expedite discovery, see Docket No. 28 (motion), is set for
hearing on January 27, 2017, at 1:30 p.m.

22
23



Defendants’ opposition to the motion shall be filed by January 18, 2017.

24



Plaintiff’s reply shall be filed no later than 12:00 p.m., January 20, 2017.

25

Because the timing of the preliminary injunction motion will likely be affected by the

26

scope of the expedited discovery sought by Plaintiff, the Court shall not, at this time, set a hearing

27

date and briefing schedule for the preliminary injunction motion. Moreover, as the discovery

28

being sought by Plaintiff will likely inform the preliminary injunction motion, it likely makes

1

sense for Plaintiff to file an amended preliminary injunction motion with an opposition and reply

2

brief to follow thereafter.
Finally, the Court addresses three other matters that have been raised by the parties’ briefs.

3



4

The parties shall stipulate to a protective order. It is the Court’s understanding that

5

the only issue that is holding up the signing of a protective order is whether

6

Plaintiff’s founder/president, Jie Tong, should be given access to Attorney’s Eyes

7

Only information. See Docket No. 29 (Opp’n at n.1). At this juncture, the Court

8

orders that Mr. Tong shall not have access to such information, particularly because

9

the party-companies appear to be direct competitors. This ruling, however, does

Tong access with respect to specific documents. In addition, this ruling is without

12
For the Northern District of California

not bar Plaintiff from asking Defendants, on a case-by-case basis, to grant Mr.

11

United States District Court

10

prejudice to Plaintiff filing a motion asking that Mr. Tong be given such access.

13

Finally, the Court forewarns both parties that broad “AEO” designations are not

14

proper and sanctions may be issued for over-designation. The stipulated

15

protective order shall be signed within a day of the date of this order.1


16

Plaintiff has indicated that it is willing to provide a trade secret disclosure. See

17

Docket No. 27 (Mot. at 3-4) (arguing that Plaintiff is not required to provide the

18

disclosure but that Plaintiff will provide it). Plaintiff shall serve the disclosure on

19

Defendants within a day of the date of this order. Plaintiff shall provide

20

specificity in its disclosure. The Court does not expect there to be satellite

21

litigation over the adequacy of the trade secret disclosure.


22

Defendants wish to take discovery with respect to the preliminary injunction

23

motion and expect that they will need to file a discovery motion. If Defendants

24

need to file a discovery motion, they may do so and on an expedited basis.

25

However, before the filing of any discovery motion, the Court expects the parties to

26

further meet and confer either in person or by telephone to discuss the discovery

27
1

28

Because of the expedited nature of proceedings, the Court is requiring the parties to take action
during the weekend.
2

1

dispute(s). The Court notes that, although this case is in its infancy, it has not been

2

satisfied with the parties’ meet-and-confer efforts, and both sides appear to be

3

taking unreasonable positions. If such conduct persists, both parties risk being

4

sanctioned. To assist the parties in their meet and confer, the Court notes as

5

follows. (1) To the extent Plaintiff wants expedited discovery to prepare for its

6

preliminary injunction motion, it is not reasonable for Defendants to ask for

7

discovery on an expedited basis to oppose that motion. (2) It is not unreasonable

8

for Defendants to take the deposition of Mr. Tong given that he submitted a

9

substantive declaration in support of the preliminary injunction motion.

10

This order disposes of Docket No. 27.

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14
15
16

Dated: January 13, 2017
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3