Filed: May 28, 2019
Latest Update: May 28, 2019
Summary: ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL Re: Dkt. No. 48 SUSAN VAN KEULEN , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court is the Parties' May 23, 2019 joint discovery letter in which Plaintiff Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc. ("Plaintiff") moves to compel Defendants RUNLABS (UK) Limited ("RUNLABS UK"), RUNLABS (Ireland) Limited ("RUNLABS Ireland") and Steven Marcus ("Marcus") (collectively, "Defendants") to respond to Plaintiff's first set of discovery requests. ECF 48. On May 1, 2019, the
Summary: ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL Re: Dkt. No. 48 SUSAN VAN KEULEN , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court is the Parties' May 23, 2019 joint discovery letter in which Plaintiff Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc. ("Plaintiff") moves to compel Defendants RUNLABS (UK) Limited ("RUNLABS UK"), RUNLABS (Ireland) Limited ("RUNLABS Ireland") and Steven Marcus ("Marcus") (collectively, "Defendants") to respond to Plaintiff's first set of discovery requests. ECF 48. On May 1, 2019, the H..
More
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
Re: Dkt. No. 48
SUSAN VAN KEULEN, Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is the Parties' May 23, 2019 joint discovery letter in which Plaintiff Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc. ("Plaintiff") moves to compel Defendants RUNLABS (UK) Limited ("RUNLABS UK"), RUNLABS (Ireland) Limited ("RUNLABS Ireland") and Steven Marcus ("Marcus") (collectively, "Defendants") to respond to Plaintiff's first set of discovery requests. ECF 48. On May 1, 2019, the Honorable Lucy H. Koh dismissed Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction. ECF 47. Judge Koh granted Plaintiff until May 30, 2019, to file an amended complaint. Id. at 20. In light of Judge Koh's order, the Court ordered Plaintiff to select no more than ten discovery requests narrowly tailored to the issue of specific personal jurisdiction over Defendants. ECF 49. Plaintiff submitted those requests, and the Court held a hearing on May 28, 2019.
Pursuant to the Parties' meet and confer efforts, the Parties' arguments and the reasons stated on the record at the May 28, 2019 hearing, the Court ORDERS as follows.
With the exception of Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 12, all three Defendants—Defendants RUNLABS UK, RUNLABS Ireland and Marcus—shall respond to the following discovery requests1 by June 6, 2019:
• Interrogatory No. 1 — "IDENTIFY all persons in the United States to whom YOU have transmitted or caused to be transmitted, the PROMOTIONAL DECK."
• Interrogatory No. 2 — "IDENTIFY all persons in the United States to whom YOU have marketed, advertised or promoted YOUR services related to RUNLABS UK and RUNLABS Ireland within the last three (3) years."
• Interrogatory No. 142 — "IDENTIFY all agreements YOU have entered into REGARDING YOUR providing of services related to RUNLABS UK and RUNLABS Ireland in California within the last three (3) years."
• Request for Production No. 1 — "ALL COMMUNICATIONS with anyone in the United States REGARDING YOUR PROMOTIONAL DECK."
• Request for Production No. 36 — "ALL official documents of incorporation, press releases or marketing materials CONCERNING YOUR contention that `RUNLABS has no operations in the United States.'"
In addition to the requests above, the Court ordered that Defendant Marcus shall also respond to the following request by June 6, 2019:
• Interrogatory No. 12 — "Describe in detail every time YOU have travelled to the United States for business since 2018, including but not limited to the dates of travel, reason for travel and location of travel."
As noted above, by June 6, 2019, Defendants shall respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests as modified by the Court. The Parties are preparing a stipulation for Judge Koh's consideration requesting relief from the May 30, 2019 deadline to file an amended complaint. Finally, at the hearing, the Parties noted that they intend to enter into and file the District's model protective order. The Court informed the Parties that once they sign the protective order, the terms of the protective order are effective, even if the Court has not yet approved and entered it.
SO ORDERED.
