Beijing Tong Ren Tang (USA), Corp. v. TRT USA Corporation et al

Filing 160

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re 117 Defendants' Motion to Compel Discovery. Show Cause Response due by 5/27/2010. Upon review of defendants' response, court to set a show cause hearing if it determines that one is necessary. Otherwise, the matter will be deemed submitted upon the filing of defendants' response. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 5/20/2010. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/20/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NOT FOR CITATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION BEIJING TONG REN TANG (USA) CORP., Plaintiff, v. TRT CORPORATION, GUANGMING SUN aka GEORGE SUN, MEI XU, PENGTAO ZHANG aka JOHN ZHANG, Defendants. / No. C09-00882 RMW (HRL) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY *E-FILED 05-20-2010*

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v.

TRT CORPORATION, GUANGMING SUN, MEI XU, and PENGTAO ZHANG, Counterclaimants,

BEIJING TONG REN TANG (USA) CORP. and CHUANLI ZHOU, Counterdefendants. / Defendants move to compel deposition and document discovery propounded in a lawsuit pending between the parties in state court (Docket No. 117). Defendants contend that this court properly may resolve any disputes in connection with that discovery because Judge Whyte has admonished the parties to avoid duplicative discovery as between that state court lawsuit and

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

the instant federal case. (See Docket No. 90, Dec. 18, 2009 Order Denying Motion to Stay Proceedings). To be sure, Judge Whyte encouraged the parties to coordinate the discovery in both actions, such that discovery obtained in one case may be used in the other. (See id. at 4-5). However, this court does not read that order to mean that discovery disputes arising in the course of the state court proceedings properly should be brought before this court for resolution. Accordingly, no later than May 27, 2010, defendants shall respond in writing (no more than 5 pages) to this order to show cause, including citations to competent authority, why this court should address discovery disputes that have arisen in connection with discovery served in the state court litigation. Upon review of defendants' response, this court will set a show cause hearing if it determines that one is necessary. Otherwise, the matter will be deemed submitted upon the filing of defendants' response. The May 25, 2010 hearing on defendants' motion to compel is vacated, and will be reset, if necessary, after this order to show cause is resolved. SO ORDERED. Dated: May 20, 2010 HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

5:09-cv-00882-RMW Notice has been electronically mailed to: J. James Li [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Jingming James Cai [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail] Suzan Yee [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail]

Teddy Tsao-Wu

William James Taylor

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3