IPVX Patent Holdings, Inc. v. 8x8, Inc.

Filing 87

ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong (Terminating 83 Motion for More Definite Statement) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/12/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

OAKLAND DIVISION

7

IPVX PATENT HOLDINGS, INC., a

Case No: C 13-01707 SBA

8 Delaware corporation,

ORDER
Plaintiff,

9

Docket 83
vs.

10

11 8X8, INC., a Delaware corporation,

Defendant.

12
13

The parties are presently before the Court on Defendant 8x8, Inc.'s ("Defendant")

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

administrative motion to clarify the Court's directives regarding discovery. Dkt. 83.
Having read and considered the papers filed in connection with this matter and being fully
informed, the Court hereby STAYS all proceedings in this case until Defendant's motion to
disqualify Plaintiff's counsel is resolved.
I.

BACKGROUND
On November 1, 2011, Plaintiff IPVX Patent Holdings, Inc. ("Plaintiff")

commenced the instant patent infringement action against Defendant in the Eastern District
of Texas. See Compl., Dkt. 1. On August 23, 2012, Defendant filed a motion to transfer
venue to either the District of Delaware or to the Northern District of California under 28
U.S.C. § 1404(a). Dkt. 25. An amended complaint was filed on September 25, 2012. Dkt.
31. On March 21, 2013, the district court in the Eastern District of Texas issued an order
transferring this case to the Northern District of California. Dkt. 40. On May 23, 2013, the
case was assigned to the undersigned. Dkt. 52.

1

On August 20, 2013, Defendant filed a motion to disqualify Plaintiff's counsel and a

2

motion to dismiss. Dkt. 71, 73. On August 21, 2013, the Court issued an order referring

3

the motion to disqualify Plaintiff's counsel to the Chief Magistrate Judge or her designee

4

for determination. Dkt. 75. On that same day, the Court also issued a minute order stating

5

that Defendant's motion to dismiss will be held in abeyance pending a ruling on

6

Defendant's motion to disqualify Plaintiff's counsel. Dkt. 76. The motion to disqualify

7

Plaintiff's counsel was subsequently assigned to Magistrate Judge Westmore and is

8

currently set for hearing on November 21, 2013. See Dkt. 82.

9

On October 7, 2013, Plaintiff propounded interrogatories and requests for production

10

of documents on Defendant which, among other things, seek "highly sensitive" financial

11

information as well as technical documents such as schematics, plans, manuals and

12

memorandums relating to Defendant's technology. Def.'s Mtn. at 3. On October 21, 2013,

13

Defendant filed an administrative motion to clarify the Court's directives regarding

14

discovery. Dkt. 83. Plaintiff filed a response on October 25, 2013. Dkt. 84.

15

II.

16

DISCUSSION
The court has inherent authority to manage the cases before it. Landis v. N. Am.

17

Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-255 (1936) ("[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the

18

power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with

19

economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants."). A "court may, for

20

good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment,

21

oppression, or undue burden or expense," including forbidding discovery or specifying

22

terms, including time and place, for discovery. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(1). "The burden is upon

23

the party seeking the order to 'show good cause' by demonstrating harm or prejudice that

24

will result from the discovery." Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir.

25

2004). A stays of proceedings in federal court, including a stay of discovery, is committed

26

to the discretion of the trial court. Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th Cir. 1987); see

27

Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988) (a district court had wide

28

discretion in controlling discovery).
-2-

1

In the instant motion, Defendant seeks clarification as to whether the Court intended

2

to stay all proceedings, including discovery, pending a determination of its motion to

3

disqualify Plaintiff's counsel, which is premised on the improper use and disclosure of

4

Defendant's confidential information by Plaintiff's co-counsel. Def.'s Mtn. at 1, 4.

5

According to Defendant, it "understands" the Court's August 21, 2013 minute order, which

6

states that Defendant's motion to dismiss will be held in abeyance pending a ruling on

7

Defendant's motion to disqualify Plaintiff's counsel, as staying this action "pending

8

determination of the disqualification issues." Id. Plaintiff disagrees, asserting that it does

9

not "understand" the Court's minute order as staying discovery in this case. Dkt. 84.

10

Having reviewed the record, the Court finds that the August 21, 2013 minute order

11

did not stay discovery in this case pending resolution of Defendant's motion to disqualify

12

Plaintiff's counsel. However, the Court finds that Defendant has shown good cause to stay

13

discovery until Defendant's motion to disqualify Plaintiff's counsel is resolved. Staying

14

discovery will avoid the possibility that the parties will unnecessarily expend time and

15

resources conducting discovery. If the motion to disqualify Plaintiff's counsel is granted,

16

the parties will have wasted time and resources propounding and responding to discovery

17

requests. Moreover, a limited stay of discovery is appropriate to prevent Plaintiff's counsel

18

from obtaining technical and financial information about Defendant before a determination

19

is made as to whether Plaintiff's counsel may continue to represent Plaintiff in this action.

20

Finally, Plaintiff has not shown that a limited stay of discovery will impose any unfair

21

prejudice on it.

22

In light of the forgoing, the Court hereby STAYS discovery in the instant action

23

until Defendant's motion to disqualify Plaintiff's counsel is resolved. To the extent

24

Defendant requests an order staying discovery pending resolution of its motion to dismiss,

25

the Court denies this request. Defendant has failed to demonstrate good cause to stay

26

discovery until its motion to dismiss is resolved.

27

III.

28

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
-3-

1
2

1.

Discovery is STAYED pending resolution of Defendant's motion to

disqualify Plaintiff's counsel.

3

2.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

This Order terminates Docket 83.

Dated: 11/12/2013

6

_______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-