Planet Aid, Inc. et al v. Reveal, Center for Investigative Reporting et al

Filing 51

ORDER DEFERRING RULING ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO RETRANSFER; GRANTING JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY. Motions terminated: 32 MOTION TO RETRANSFER THE CASE TO THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO TAKE JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY filed by Lisbeth Thomsen, Planet Aid, Inc. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 10/30/2017. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/30/2017)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

PLANET AID, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10
11

v.
REVEAL, CENTER FOR
INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 17-cv-03695-MMC
ORDER DEFERRING RULING ON
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO
RETRANSFER; GRANTING
JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY
Re: Dkt. No. 32

12
13

Before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion to retransfer or, in the alternative, to take

14

jurisdictional discovery, filed July 11, 2017, by which plaintiffs challenge an order of the

15

United States District Court for the District of Maryland, granting defendants’ Motion to

16

Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Improper Venue, and transferring the

17

above-titled action to the Northern District of California. Defendants have filed

18

opposition, to which plaintiffs have replied. The matter came on regularly for hearing on

19

October 27, 2017. Samuel Rosenthal, Matthew F. Miller, and Tania L. Rice of Squire

20

Patton Boggs (US) LLP appeared on behalf of plaintiffs. Thomans R. Burke of Davis

21

Wright Tremaine LLP appeared on behalf of defendants.

22

The Court having considered the parties’ respective written submissions and the

23

arguments of counsel at the hearing, finds plaintiffs have not shown the challenged order

24

was “clearly erroneous,” see Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., 486 U.S.

25

800, 819 (1988), or that the evidence recently discovered by plaintiffs “would have been

26

critical to the Maryland court’s jurisdiction . . . determination” (see Reply at 3:3). With

27

regard to jurisdictional discovery, to the extent plaintiffs’ request encompasses the

28

deposition of Deborah George, the request is hereby GRANTED, see Harris Rutsky &

1

Co. Ins. Services, Inc. v. Bell & Clements Ltd., 328 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)

2

(finding jurisdictional discovery warranted where such discovery “might well demonstrate

3

facts sufficient to constitute a basis for jurisdiction”), and in all other respects the request

4

is hereby DENIED.

5

Accordingly, for the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, the Court hereby

6

DEFERS ruing on the plaintiffs’ motion to retransfer, pending the deposition of Deborah

7

George, and the parties are hereby DIRECTED to file, no later than November 6, 2017, a

8

joint proposed schedule for supplemental briefing.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Dated: October 30, 2017
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2