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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?