ORDER REGARDING JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY PLAN AS TO PLAINTIFFS AND HUAWEI

BETH LABSON FREEMAN, District Judge.

Before the Court is the jurisdictional discovery plan submitted by Plaintiffs Roy Berry, Jonathan Makcharoenwoodhi, Alex Gorbatchev, Brian Christensen, Anthony Martorello, Khanh Tran, Edward Beheler, Yuriy Davydov, Rebecca Harrison, Zachary Himes, Taylor Jones, Paul Servodio, Justin Leone, James Poore, Jr., and Kenneth Johnston ("Plaintiffs") and Defendant Huawei Device USA, Inc. ("Huawei"). See ECF 114. Although the parties have come to an agreement on certain issues, they dispute the substantive scope of discovery, whether requests for production and fact witness depositions are appropriate at this time, and whether Huawei may seek any jurisdictional discovery from Plaintiffs. Id. The Court resolves the parties' remaining disputes as follows.

I. HUAWEI'S REQUEST FOR JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY FROM PLAINTIFFS

Huawei requests discovery into where Plaintiffs purchased their phones, where Plaintiffs lived at the time they purchased their phones, and where Plaintiffs experienced the alleged bootloop and battery drain defects. See ECF 114 at 7. Plaintiffs argue that jurisdictional discovery of Plaintiffs is not warranted and makes little sense in light of Plaintiffs' forthcoming amendments to the complaint. Id. at 4. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs on this point. As the Court recently indicated in its Order Granting With Leave to Amend Huawei's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, the Consolidated Amended Complaint is defective in part because it "does not indicate where Plaintiffs purchased their phones, where Plaintiffs experienced the defects, or even where Plaintiffs were residing at the time that they purchased their phones." ECF 113 at 7.

Accordingly, the Court anticipates that Plaintiffs will address this information in the Amended Complaint per the Court's Order. Huawei's request for discovery from Plaintiffs at this stage is DENIED.

II. SCOPE OF DISCOVERY — TOPICS

The parties also disagree on the scope of the substantive topics for jurisdictional discovery. Plaintiffs believe the following topics are appropriate for jurisdictional discovery:

See ECF 114 at 1-2. The Court finds that Plaintiffs' scope is too broad. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Huawei's proposal regarding the scope of discovery topics WITH MODIFICATIONS. Plaintiffs may enlarge the scope to include activities "purposefully directed toward California" that are relevant to the claims asserted. Jurisdictional discovery shall therefore be limited to the following topics:

These topics may cover those topics requested by Plaintiffs, but shall not be open ended in scope. Should further disputes arise regarding the scope of topics for jurisdictional discovery, the parties are ORDERED to meet and confer, and if unresolved, to raise such disputes with the Magistrate Judge on or before March 14, 2018.

III. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Plaintiffs have prepared seven (7) requests for production of documents ("RFPs") from Huawei. See Exh. B, ECF 114-2. Huawei argues that these requests will be "burdensome, inefficient, and unnecessary" because Plaintiffs seek documents that will be difficult to identify, and unreasonably request Huawei "to collect all documents related to the development of the Nexus 6P, and scour them for any indication of California activity." See ECF 114 at 9.

In light of the Court's narrowing of the topics of discovery, described above, the Court agrees with Huawei that Plaintiffs' proposed RFPs are too broad. See ECF 114-2. The parties are hereby ORDERED to meet and confer on or before March 14, 2018 to narrow the RFPs or address continuing disputes regarding the RFPs to the Magistrate Judge in light of this Court's Order limiting the scope of discovery. Moreover, it is inefficient for the Court to require depositions without the production of documents. The Court therefore expects significant narrowing of the scope of Plaintiffs' RFPs.

IV. INTERROGATORIES

Plaintiffs have also prepared one set of four interrogatories aimed at gathering jurisdictional discovery of Huawei's activities in or purposefully directed to California. See ECF 114-3. The parties are ORDERED to continue to meet and confer on the scope of Plaintiffs' interrogatories in light of the narrowing of the discovery topics and RFPs.

As explained above, Huawei's request to propound interrogatories on Plaintiffs for purposes of jurisdictional discovery is DENIED.

V. DEPOSITIONS

Plaintiffs seek to take the depositions of the following witnesses:

See ECF 114 at 4-5. Huawei agrees to provide a Rule 30(b)(6) witness to testify regarding the court-ordered topics of jurisdictional discovery. Id. at 10. However, Huawei opposes Plaintiffs' request to take three depositions of California-based employees, who are knowledgeable as to merits, rather than jurisdictional, discovery. Id. Huawei indicates that it is willing to meet and confer with Plaintiffs after the 30(b)(6) deposition if Plaintiffs believe that the 30(b)(6) designee is unable to provide sufficient information regarding the scope of jurisdictional discovery. Id.

The Court ADOPTS Huawei's approach, and will allow one Rule 30(b)(6) deposition for Plaintiffs. Huawei is not required to produce the California witnesses identified in its initial disclosures at this time.

VI. CASE SCHEDULE

The Court has also reviewed the parties' proposals regarding the case schedule. ECF 114 at 10-11. The Court ADOPTS Plaintiffs' proposals AS MODIFIED and SETS the following schedule with respect to jurisdictional discovery:

IT IS SO ORDERED.