Glass Egg Digital Media v. Gameloft, Inc. et al

Filing 169

Discovery Order. Signed by Judge Robert M. Illman on 04/15/2019. (rmilc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/15/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

EUREKA DIVISION

7
8

GLASS EGG DIGITAL MEDIA,
Plaintiff,

9
10

ORDER

v.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 165, 168

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 17-cv-04165-MMC (RMI)

GAMELOFT, INC., et al.,

12

Defendants.

13
14

Currently pending before the court are two jointly filed discovery letter briefs: the first

15

(dkt. 165) (“Discovery Motion”), sets forth a discovery dispute between Plaintiff and Defendant

16

Gameloft SE (“GLSE”) regarding jurisdictional discovery; the second (dkt. 168) (“Motion to

17

Quash”), sets forth a dispute where both remaining Defendants, Gameloft, Inc. (“GLI”) as well as

18

GLSE, move to quash or limit a number of subpoenas served on third parties by Plaintiffs.

19

As to the Discovery Motion, the Parties appear to have left no stone unturned in seeking

20

out things about which to disagree. The Parties’ dispute about the permissible scope of

21

jurisdictional discovery has somehow morphed to include disputes about which judge should

22

decide the matter; and, there is even disagreement about who would be the moving party. See

23

Discovery Mtn. (dkt. 165) at 1. The only thing on which the parties seem to agree is the unanimous

24

request for briefing and a hearing. In short, an otherwise simple matter appears to have become

25

unnecessarily convoluted. The matter can be re-simplified by noting two facts. First, on February

26

6, 2018, Judge Chesney entered an order providing that “all further discovery matters” be referred

27

to the undersigned (dkt. 92). Second, on February 12, 2018, Judge Chesney entered an order

28

stating that because Plaintiff had failed to make a prima facie showing that GLSE’s contacts with

1

California were sufficient to establish specific jurisdiction, the court would grant Plaintiff leave to

2

conduct “jurisdictional discovery pertaining to (a) the size of Gameloft SE’s business in California

3

and (b) the identity of the Gameloft entity/entities that operate(s) the website accessible to website

4

users within California.” Order (dkt. 94) at 2. Thus, Judge Chesney established the scope of

5

jurisdictional discovery, and referred to the undersigned any discovery disputes that may arise.

6

The Discovery Motion presents such a dispute; accordingly, the matter is properly before the

7

undersigned.

8
9

The parties are directed as follows: Plaintiff is ORDERED to file a brief, no later than
Monday, April 29, 2019, enumerating each item of discovery sought and explaining (and, if need
be, evidencing) how that item falls under one of the two categories of permissible jurisdictional

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

discovery established by Judge Chesney’s written order. Defendant GLSE is ORDERED to file a

12

responsive brief, no later than Monday, May 6, 2019, explaining (and, if need be, evidencing) why

13

any item of challenged discovery does not fall under either of the categories established by Judge

14

Chesney’s written order. No reply or sur-reply briefs will be accepted. Following the parties’

15

submissions, the court will determine if a hearing is warranted.

16

Further, as to the Motion to Quash Plaintiff’s third-party subpoenas, the court will defer

17

ruling on those issues until after the resolution of the issues presented in the Motion for Discovery.

18

In the meantime, compliance with Plaintiff’s subpoenas is STAYED.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 15, 2019

21
22
ROBERT M. ILLMAN
United States Magistrate Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
2