Sprint Communications Company L.P. v. Cox Communications, Inc. et al

Filing 44

DISCOVERY ORDER & NOTICE OF HEARING: Plaintiff's request for jurisdictional discovery is granted; limited jurisdictional discovery shall be completed by 8/3/12. Evidentiary Hearing set for 8/9/2012 at 09:00 AM in KC Courtroom (Unknown) before District Judge Julie A. Robinson - Regarding CCI's Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Julie A. Robinson on 7/6/2012. (mb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS, L.P.

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
)
COX COMMUNICATIONS KANSAS, )
LLC, COX KANSAS TELCOM, LLC, )
and, COXCOM, LLC.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Case No. 11-2683-JAR-KMH

DISCOVERY ORDER AND NOTICE OF HEARING
Before the Court is Defendant Cox Communication Inc.’s (“CCI”) Motion to Dismiss
under Rule 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(3) for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Improper Venue (Doc.
31). In response, Plaintiff Sprint Communications, L.P. requests jurisdictional discovery on the
narrow issue of whether CCI is subject to specific personal jurisdiction in this District.
The Court finds that limited jurisdictional discovery and an evidentiary hearing is
warranted in this case. In the Tenth Circuit, this Court may not refuse to grant jurisdictional
discovery “if either the pertinent jurisdictional facts are controverted or a more satisfactory
showing of the facts is necessary.”1 Based on the briefing, it appears that a number of relevant
jurisdictional facts are controverted and that Plaintiff’s request is based on more than “a mere
hunch.”2 In particular, Plaintiff has identified an issue of fact as to the extent of CCI’s influence

1

See, e.g., Health Grades, Inc. v. Decatur Mem’l Hosp., 190 F. App’x 586, 589 (10th Cir. 2006) (citing
Sizova v. Nat’l Inst. of Standards & Tech., 282 F.3d 1320, 1326 (10th Cir. 2002)). The law of the regional circuit
applies to determine issues not unique to patent law, such as jurisdictional discovery. Nuance Commcn’s v. Abbyy
Software House, 626 F.3d 1222, 1235 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
2

See Nuance Commcn’s, 626 F.3d at 1235–36 (citing Patent Rights Prot. Grp. LLC v. Video Gaming
Techs., Inc., 603 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 2008)).

and control over the Cox subsidiaries in Kansas. Plaintiff has submitted numerous publiclyavailable documents that, when coupled with the allegations set forth in the Amended
Complaint, controvert Defendant’s position that CCI has no contacts in Kansas arising under or
relating to Plaintiff’s patent infringement allegations, including ownership of equipment used for
that purpose. Plaintiff has also submitted the declaration of Bruce McLeod, the Executive
Director of Service and Enterprise Architecture for Cox Communications, submitted in a
different case in the Eastern District of Virginia, that suggests CCI operates as more than a
holding company and actually directs and controls the Kansas subsidiaries named in this lawsuit.
The Court finds that Plaintiff has pointed to “pertinent facts bearing on the question of
jurisdiction” that are controverted.3 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for jurisdictional discovery
is granted and the parties shall have until August 3, 2012 to complete discovery relevant to this
issue in advance of the hearing on this motion.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Plaintiff’s request for
jurisdictional discovery is granted; limited jurisdictional discovery shall be completed by August
3, 2012. An evidentiary hearing on CCI’s Motion to Dismiss is set for August 9, 2012, at 9:00
a.m. in Kansas City, KS.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 6, 2012
S/ Julie A. Robinson
JULIE A. ROBINSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3
See id.; Commissariat A L’Engergie Atomique v. Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corp., 395 F.3d 1315, 1323
(Fed. Cir. 2005).

2