Voodoo SAS v. SayGames LLC ( 2020 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 VOODOO SAS, Case No. 19-cv-07480-BLF 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 9 v. PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT 10 SAYGAMES LLC, JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY 11 Defendant. [Re: ECF 29] 12 13 For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing on April 16, 2020, and discussed below, 14 Plaintiff’s motion for leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery (ECF 29) is DENIED WITHOUT 15 PREJUDICE. 16 Plaintiff Voodoo SAS, a French mobile game app developer, sues Defendant SayGames 17 LLC, a Belarusian mobile game app developer, for copyright infringement and related claims 18 arising out of SayGames’ alleged copying of Voodoo’s mobile game app Shape Shifter 3D. See 19 Compl., ECF 1. Voodoo alleges that SayGames’ mobile game app Jelly Shift is “a clone of Shape 20 Shifter 3D that incorporates Shape Shifter 3D’s protectable and distinctive elements.” Compl. ¶ 21 2. SayGames has responded by moving to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of 22 Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)6), for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, 23 respectively. See Motion to Dismiss, ECF 22. 24 After the motion to dismiss was filed, the parties submitted a stipulated request to allow 25 Voodoo to file a motion for leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery prior to completion of 26 briefing on the motion to dismiss. See Stipulation, ECF 27. The Court approved the stipulation 27 with minor modifications. See Order Addressing the Parties’ Joint Stipulation, ECF 28. Voodoo’s 1 Motion for Leave, ECF 29; Opposition, ECF 30; Reply, ECF 31; Discovery Plan, ECF 34; 2 Response to Discovery Plan, ECF 36. As discussed at the hearing, both the parties and the Court 3 expected that addressing jurisdictional discovery issues before litigating the motion to dismiss 4 would be most efficient. However, this has turned out not to be the case. 5 A district court has “broad discretion” to permit or deny discovery to aid in determining 6 whether it has personal jurisdiction. Butcher’s Union Local No. 498 v. SDC Investment, Inc., 788 7 F.2d 535, 540 (9th Cir.1986) (trial court has “broad discretion to permit or deny discovery”); Data 8 Disc, Inc. v. Sys. Tech. Assocs., Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1285 n.1 (9th Cir.1977) (“A court may permit 9 discovery to aid in determining whether it has in personam jurisdiction.”). “Discovery may be 10 appropriately granted where pertinent facts bearing on the question of jurisdiction are controverted 11 or where a more satisfactory showing of the facts is necessary.” Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 12 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 2008) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 13 Voodoo argues that jurisdictional discovery is warranted on both grounds. First, Voodoo 14 contends that the existence of controverted facts is established by the declaration of SayGames’ 15 Chief Operating Officer, Dzianis Vaihanski, offered in support of SayGames’ motion to dismiss. 16 At the hearing, the Court questioned whether Mr. Vaihanski’s declaration controverts any facts 17 alleged in the complaint or contains any facts relevant to specific jurisdiction rather than general 18 jurisdiction. The Court indicated that it did not understand Voodoo to be asserting general 19 jurisdiction. Voodoo’s counsel responded that he expected that Voodoo’s brief in opposition to 20 the motion to dismiss would focus on specific jurisdiction, but that he was not prepared to waive 21 the assertion of general jurisdiction. Consequently, it is unclear at this time whether Mr. 22 Vaihanski’s declaration creates controverted facts that would necessitate jurisdictional discovery. 23 With respect to Voodoo’s argument that discovery is necessary to a more satisfactory showing of 24 jurisdictional facts, the Court finds it difficult to evaluate that argument without having the benefit 25 of the parties’ briefing on certain legal issues raised in the motion to dismiss. Even if the Court 26 were persuaded that some jurisdictional discovery is warranted, the scope of the discovery 27 proposed by Voodoo appears too broad, at least on the present record. 1 most sensible course is to deny Voodoo’s present motion without prejudice to Voodoo’s ability to 2 || argue the necessity for jurisdictional discovery in the context of its opposition to SayGames’ 3 || motion to dismiss. While the Court appreciates the parties’ goal of efficiency in raising the 4 || discovery issues in advance of the motion to dismiss, in this particular case it appears that 5 || consideration of Voodoo’s request for discovery in conjunction with SayGames’ motion to 6 || dismiss better will allow the Court to address the parties’ arguments in an orderly fashion. 7 ORDER 8 Voodoo’s motion for leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery is DENIED WITHOUT 9 |} PREJUDICE. 10 This order terminates ECF 29. 11 12 |} Dated: April 16,2020 han an fobs dyn heen). BETH LABSON FREEMAN 14 United States District Judge 16 1g 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28