NEAS LIMITED v. OJSC RUSNANO et al

Filing 73

ORDER requesting briefing regarding 71 MOTION Relief from Non-Dispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge. Plaintiffs shall file a brief addressing the questions in the attached order, not to exceed 8 pages, within 14 days of the date of thi s order. Defendants may file a brief in response, not to exceed 8 pages, within 14 days of service of plaintiffs' brief. Plaintiffs may file a reply, not exceeding 4 pages, within 7 days of service of defendants' brief. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 1/28/2016. (rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/28/2016)

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
NEAS LIMITED, et al.,

12

Case No. 5:15-cv-01612-RMW

Plaintiffs,
13
v.
14
OJSC RUSNANO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

ORDER REQUESTING BRIEFING
REGARDING MOTION FOR RELIEF
FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL
ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Re: Dkt. No. 71

16

On January 12, 2016, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Relief from Non-Dispositive Pretrial

17
18

Order of Magistrate Judge. Dkt. No. 71. Plaintiffs assert six objections to the magistrate judge’s

19

order denying plaintiffs’ request to conduct jurisdictional discovery before plaintiffs are required

20

to respond to defendants’ pending motions to dismiss. Dkt. No. 70. The magistrate judge’s order is

21

reviewed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).1
It appears undisputed at this stage that the court can exercise personal jurisdiction over

22
23

Rusnano USA. Accordingly, the court agrees with the magistrate judge’s order that further

24

discovery to establish jurisdiction over Rusnano USA is unnecessary.
With respect to the foreign defendants, the court requests briefing regarding the following

25
26
27
28

1

“The district judge in the case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part
of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
1
5:15-cv-01612-RMW
ORDER REQUESTING BRIEFING RE: MOT. FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
RS

1

issues:

2

1. What basis for allowing jurisdictional discovery exists, if any, if the court considers the

3

foreign defendants’ contact not only with California, but also with the United States as

4

a whole?
2. If the court were to exercise its discretion2 and consider the declaration of Ilya

5
6

Ponomarev, Dkt. No. 72-1, how, if at all, would the declaration support a basis for

7

taking jurisdictional discovery?

8

3. What specific jurisdictional discovery would plaintiffs undertake in their proposed 60-

9

day discovery period? The court finds that the proposed list of topics in Dkt. No. 59 at
8:3-14 is unreasonably broad. Plaintiffs’ response should include the names of any

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

potential deponents, if possible, a description of any documents to be produced, and

12

proposed interrogatories limited to ascertaining specific dates and locations of events

13

or actions allegedly giving rise to jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs shall file a brief addressing the questions above, not to exceed 8 pages, within 14

14
15

days of the date of this order. Defendants may file a brief in response, not to exceed 8 pages,

16

within 14 days of service of plaintiffs’ brief. Plaintiffs may file a reply, not exceeding 4 pages,

17

within 7 days of service of defendants’ brief.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated: January 28, 2016
______________________________________
Ronald M. Whyte
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

This court finds that the magistrate judge did not err in refusing to consider the Ponomarev
declaration, which plaintiffs initially filed weeks after filing their reply in support of their request
for jurisdictional discovery. Plaintiffs’ tardy filing violated Civ. L.R. 7-3(d). See Dkt. Nos. 66, 69.
However, a district court has discretion, but is not required, to consider evidence presented for the
first time in a party’s objection to a magistrate judge’s order. United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d
615, 621-22 (9th Cir. 2000).
2
5:15-cv-01612-RMW
ORDER REQUESTING BRIEFING RE: MOT. FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
RS