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

Filing 168

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd re 117 Defendants' Motion to Compel Discovery. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NOT FOR CITATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION BEIJING TONG REN TANG (USA) CORP., Plaintiff, v. TRT CORPORATION,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 RE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY [Re: Docket No. 117] *E-FILED 06-10-2010*

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 were ordered to show cause why this court should address discovery disputes that have arisen in connection with discovery served in that action. Having reviewed defendants' response to the order to show

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

cause, this court concludes that defendants should move the state court to enforce discovery propounded in that matter. Defendants contend that this court properly may resolve any disputes in connection with that discovery because Judge Whyte admonished the parties to avoid duplicative discovery as between that state court lawsuit and the instant federal case. (See Docket No. 90, Dec. 18, 2009 Order Denying Motion to Stay Proceedings). In essence, defendants argue that this court should address their state court discovery requests because those requests could have been propounded here. The fact remains, however, that they were not. Judge Whyte certainly 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). But, as previously noted, 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. The requests in dispute may be subject to state procedural rules which may well differ from those applied in this court. Moreover, at least some of the discovery at issue in defendants' motion apparently have been resolved by a separate discovery motion brought before the state court. (See Docket No. 165). Defendants assert that the state court case has not yet been set for trial, whereas trial in the instant action is some two months away. However, they have presented no reason why the matter could not be brought before the state court in time for defendants to use whatever discovery they obtain there in the instant action. Accordingly, defendants' motion to compel (Docket No. 117) will be terminated. Defendants are directed to bring that motion before the state court for resolution. SO ORDERED. Dated: June 10, 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], [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