Eternal Charity Foundation et al v. BBC Broadcasting Inc et al

Filing 56

ORDER that 43 Motion for Jurisdictional Discovery is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 1/26/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

ETERNAL CHARITY FOUNDATION, et al,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
BBC BROADCASTING, INC., et al,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
_______________________________________ )

Case No. 2:16-cv-02336-JCM-CWH

ORDER

Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery

11

(ECF No. 43), filed on December 30, 2016. Defendants filed a response (ECF No. 54) on January

12

13, 2017. Plaintiffs did not file a reply.

13

Plaintiffs seek leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery in order to determine the extent to

14

which Defendants’ radio broadcast targeted or was otherwise received by Nevada residents.

15

Defendants oppose the motion, arguing that such discovery would be irrelevant to determining

16

personal jurisdiction.

17

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) generally prevents parties from engaging in

18

discovery until after a 26(f) conference, unless so ordered by the court. A court is within its

19

discretion to deny a request for such discovery “when it is clear that further discovery would not

20

demonstrate facts sufficient to constitute a basis for jurisdiction.” Am. W. Airlines, Inc. v. GPA Grp.,

21

Ltd., 877 F.2d 793, 801 (9th Cir. 1989). Further, “[w]here a plaintiff’s claim of personal jurisdiction

22

appears to be both attenuated and based on bare allegations in the face of specific denials made by

23

the defendants, the Court need not permit even limited discovery.” Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453

24

F.3d 1151, 1160 (9th Cir. 2006) (quotation marks and internal citations omitted).

25

Here, Plaintiffs provide no evidence to back their claims that Defendants’ broadcasts targeted

26

Nevada residents. Defendants have submitted evidence, which Plaintiffs have not contradicted, that

27

their radio broadcasts do not target Nevada residents. The Court finds that evidence that a number

28

1

1

of Nevada residents heard the broadcast would not change the jurisdictional analysis, and therefore

2

not serve to establish the Court’s personal jurisdiction over Defendants. Plaintiffs’ motion is

3

therefore denied.

4
5

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for jurisdictional discovery (ECF No.
43) is DENIED.

6
7

DATED: January 26, 2017.

8
9

_________________________________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2