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
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?