Hunter Douglas, Inc. et al v. Nien Made Enterprise Co. Ltd. et al
MINUTE ORDER denying 158 Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Conduct Jurisdictional Discovery. By Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 10/31/2014.(emill)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-01412-MSK-MJW
HUNTER DOUGLAS, INC., and
ANDREW J. TOTI TESTAMENTARY TRUST,
NIEN MADE ENTERPRISE CO. LTD.,
NORMAN INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
NORMAN INTERNATIONAL COLORADO, LLC,
RICHFIELD WINDOW COVERINGS, INC. d/b/a NIEN MADE U.S.A., and
GLOBAL CUSTOM COMMERCE, INC. d/b/a BLINDS.COM,
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Conduct Jurisdictional
Discovery (docket no. 158) is DENIED for the following reasons.
This court entered a Rule 16 Scheduling Order on October 8, 2013. See docket
no. 47. Both sides had ten months to conduct discovery including the ability to serve
interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and request for admissions. In
addition, both sides were permitted to take depositions per the Scheduling Order. See
paragraph 9 in the Scheduling Order (docket no. 47) for the limitations on written
discovery and depositions. During the ten-month discovery period before the court
stayed the case, Plaintiffs served a total of 97 interrogatories and 289 requests for
production of documents on Defendants and Nien Made. Plaintiffs were permitted, per
the Scheduling Order (docket no. 47), during this ten-month period of discovery to
notice any depositions within the limitations set by the court in paragraph 9 in the
Scheduling Order (docket no. 47), but Plaintiffs did not notice any depositions. In
particular, Plaintiffs did not notice the deposition of Ranjan Mada, President of one of
Nien Made’s domestic subsidiaries, Norman International, Inc., which deposition they
now seek in the subject motion (docket no. 158). Furthermore, Plaintiffs did not serve
any subpoenas during this ten-month discovery period. Plaintiffs had an opportunity to
conduct extensive discovery on Nien Made and on the other Defendants during this tenmonth discovery period and before the court ruled on Nien Made’s Motion to Dismiss
(docket no. 107). In essence, Plaintiffs made a decision not to seek additional
jurisdictional discovery during the ten-month discovery period and further made a
decision not to notice and take the deposition of Ranjan Mada even though they could
have conducted this type of jurisdictional discovery. See Platten v. HG Bermuda
Exempted Ltd., 437 F.3d 118, 139-40 (1st Cir. 20060; Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt,
722 F.2d 779, 788 & n.15 (D.C. Cir. 1983).
On June 26, 2014, this court issued a written Recommendation on Defendant
Nien Made Enterprise Co., Ltd’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended
Complaint for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (docket no. 107) [docket no. 151].
Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed Objections (docket no. 155) to my Recommendation (docket
no. 151). On July 21, 2014, Chief Judge Krieger conducted a hearing on the
Recommendation (docket no. 151) and Objections (docket nol 155) and adopted the
Recommendation (docket no. 151) and made such Recommendation (docket no. 151)
an Order of Court. See docket nos. 156 and 157. Chief Judge Krieger also reversed
my Order (docket no. 86), based on new facts, regarding Defendants’ Motion to Stay
Pending the USPTO’s Review of Inter Partes Review Petitions (docket no. 74), and she
entered a Stay Order until there is a determination by the Patent Office on the most
recent petition. See docket no. 157.
Here, this court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to
demonstrate entitlement to jurisdictional discovery. My Recommendation (docket no.
151), which Chief Judge Krieger adopted, found that Plaintiffs failed to make a prima
facie case for jurisdiction. Simply put, Plaintiffs’ arguments are the same as presented
earlier in this case which I rejected when I recommended Nien Made’s Motion to
Dismiss be granted. See Recommendation (docket no. 151). Accordingly, in this court’s
discretion the subject motion (docket no. 158) should be denied. See Frontera
Resources Azerbaijan Corp. v. State Oil Co. of Azerbaijan Republic, 582 F.3d 393, 401
(2nd Cir. 2009).
Date: October 31, 2014
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?