NetApp, Inc. v. Nimble Storage, Inc. et al

Filing 64

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd re 43 Discovery Dispute Joint Report No. 1. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/6/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

NETAPP, INC.,

Case No. 5:13-cv-05058 HRL

Plaintiff,
13

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE
JOINT REPORT NO. 1

v.
14

[Re: Dkt. No. 43]
15
16
17
18
19
20

NIMBLE STORAGE, INC., MICHAEL
REYNOLDS, an individual, DANIEL
WEBER, an individual, SANDHYA
KLUTE, an individual, TIMOTHY
BINNING, an individual, NEIL GLICK, an
individual, CHRISTOPHER ALDUINO, an
individual, and Does 1-50,
Defendants.
In Discovery Dispute Joint Report (DDJR) No. 1, plaintiff requests leave to conduct

21

jurisdictional discovery in connection with defendants’ pending motion to dismiss for lack of

22

personal jurisdiction, and the parties apparently dispute the scope of discovery that properly may

23

be taken at this stage of the litigation. Defendants maintain that this is a decision that properly

24

rests with the presiding judge, arguing that there is no basis for general jurisdiction and that, any

25

discovery must be limited to specific jurisdiction. The docket indicates that the parties stipulated

26

that plaintiff’s renewed motion for leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery could be set for

27

hearing before Judge Koh on May 8, 2014. (Dkt. No. 39). Whether or not jurisdictional discovery

28

should be allowed is a threshold question for the presiding judge to determine in the first instance.

1

There is no indication that Judge Koh has determined that jurisdictional discovery is necessary or

2

appropriate to resolve defendants’ pending motion, and she has not referred that particular

3

question to the undersigned. Accordingly, the DDJR is denied, subject to whatever decision Judge

4

Koh may make on that issue. 1
SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: May 6, 2014
______________________________________
HOWARD R. LLOYD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1

28

If Judge Koh allows jurisdictional discovery and defines its permissible scope, then any disputes
over the requests that are propounded properly would be brought before this court.
2

1

5:13-cv-05058-LHK Notice has been electronically mailed to:

2

David T. Xue

[e-mail]

3

Grace Y. Park

[e-mail], [e-mail]

4

Jaideep Venkatesan

5
6

Karineh Khachatourian [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail]

7

Patrick Eugene Premo

[e-mail], [e-mail]

8

Patrick Shaw Salceda

[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3