GRANTING MOTION FOR JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY; CONTINUING MOTION TO DISMISS

Re: Dkt. No. 19, 20

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, District Judge.

The motion of plaintiff Unity IPR ApS for jurisdictional discovery (Dkt. No. 20) to oppose the motion of defendant Cruden BV to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is GRANTED. Unity has alleged facts to establish a basis for personal jurisdiction as to Cruden in its complaint. Cruden's motion to dismiss ostensibly challenged the allegations of the complaint alone. However, on reply to the motion, Cruden submitted a declaration refuting Unity's allegations. Unity seeks jurisdictional discovery to respond to Cruden's arguments and declaration.

Jurisdictional "[d]iscovery may be appropriately granted where pertinent facts bearing on the question of jurisdiction are controverted or where a more satisfactory showing of the facts is necessary." Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Data Disc, Inc. v. Systems Tech Assoc. Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1285 n.1 (9th Cir. 1977). To grant the motion here without permitting Unity a reasonable opportunity to test Cruden's evidence, offered for the first time on reply, would result in actual and substantial prejudice to Unity.

Therefore, Unity is granted a brief period of discovery limited to jurisdictional issues. Such jurisdictional discovery shall be concluded by May 31, 2018. Unity may file a supplemental opposition to the motion to dismiss no later than June 14, 2018. Cruden may file a supplemental reply no later than June 21, 2018. The motion to dismiss, currently set for hearing on March 6, 2018, is CONTINUED to July10, 2018, at 2:00 p.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.