EHang Inc. v. Wang ( 2021 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 EHANG INC., Case No. 21-cv-02700-BLF 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 9 v. MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY; DENYING 10 GARY WANG, DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY; AND DENYING 11 Defendant. THE PARTIES’ STIPULATED REQUEST TO RESET THE INITIAL 12 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 13 [Re: ECF 18, 26] 14 15 On August 19, 2021, the parties filed a stipulated request to reset the Initial Case 16 Management Conference, currently scheduled for August 26, 2021, until the Court resolves a 17 cross-motion to stay discovery filed by Defendant Gary Wang. See Joint Stipulation, ECF 26. 18 Wang’s cross-motion to stay discovery was made in response to a motion for expedited discovery 19 filed by Plaintiff EHang, Inc., and both motions originally were presented to Magistrate Judge 20 DeMarchi in a Joint Discovery Letter Brief. See Joint Discovery Letter Brief, ECF 18. Because 21 the issue of a discovery stay must be decided by the presiding district judge, Judge DeMarchi 22 referred the Joint Discovery Letter Brief to the undersigned for resolution. See Order Referring 23 Discovery Dispute, ECF 21. 24 The Court finds that EHang’s motion for expedited discovery and Wang’s cross-motion to 25 stay discovery are suitable for disposition without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Both 26 motions are DENIED for the reasons discussed below. In light of the Court’s ruling, the stipulated 27 request to reset the Initial Case Management Conference is DENIED. The Initial Case 1 EHang’s Motion for Expedited Discovery 2 With respect to EHang’s motion for expedited discovery, a party generally “may not seek 3 discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except in a 4 proceeding exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or when authorized by [the 5 federal rules], by stipulation, or by court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). Courts in this district 6 apply a “good cause” standard in considering whether to grant a motion to expedite discovery. 7 Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D. Cal. 2002). “Good cause 8 may be found where the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of 9 justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party.” Id. “Good cause for expedited 10 discovery is frequently found in cases involving claims of infringement and unfair competition or 11 in cases where the plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction.” Twitch Interactive, Inc. v. Johnston, 12 No. 16-CV-03404-BLF, 2017 WL 1133520, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2017). “Good cause may 13 also exist in cases where a defendant has failed to appear, resulting in the entry of default against 14 the defendant, and the plaintiff is in need of evidence to establish damages.” Id. 15 EHang asserts that good cause exists to grant its motion for expedited discovery because 16 Wang has refused to conduct a Rule 26(f) conference and has indicated that he will stall discovery. 17 The Initial Case Management Conference is scheduled for August 26, 2021, after which Wang 18 will be able to proceed with discovery. As discussed below, the Court concludes that Wang has 19 not established that a discovery stay is warranted. Accordingly, if Wang attempts to stall 20 discovery, EHang will have all the ordinary remedies available to a civil litigant. The Court notes 21 that this is not the type of case in which expedited discovery ordinarily is granted, as it does not 22 involve claims of infringement, a motion for preliminary injunction, or a defendant’s default. 23 After considering EHang’s motion and the record as a whole, the Court finds that EHang has not 24 shown the requisite good cause to prevail in its motion. Accordingly, EHang’s motion for 25 expedited discovery is DENIED. 26 Wang’s Motion to Stay Discovery 27 Turning to Wang’s motion to stay discovery, “[t]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do 1 pending.” In re Google Digital Advert. Antitrust Litig., No. 20-CV-03556-BLF, 2020 WL 2 || 7227159, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2020) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Discovery may 3 || be stayed upon a showing of “good cause.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(A). Under Ninth Circuit 4 || law, however, a party moving to stay discovery “carries the heavy burden of making a strong 5 showing why discovery should be denied.” /d. (quotation marks and citation omitted). “Courts in 6 || this district have applied a two-pronged test to determine whether discovery should be stayed 7 pending resolution of a dispositive motion.” Jd. at *2 (collecting cases). Under this test, the court 8 || takes a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the pending motion to determine whether: (1) the 9 motion is potentially dispositive of the case or at least the issue as to which discovery is sought; 10 and (2) the pending motion can be decided absent additional discovery. See id. If both prongs are 11 satisfied, discovery may be stayed. See id. If either prong is not established, discovery proceeds. 12 || See id. 13 Wang contends that both prongs are satisfied here. Having taken a preliminary peek at 14 || Wang’s motion to dismiss, the Court agrees that the motion is potentially dispositive. However, 3 15 the Court cannot determine at this time whether Wang is likely to prevail on the motion or whether 16 || leave to amend would be denied if Wang were to prevail. Moreover, as the motion is based in part 3 17 on factual assertions grounded in evidence submitted with the motion, the Court cannot find at this 18 time that it may be decided absent additional discovery. The Court concludes that Wang has not 19 || made the strong showing required to warrant a discovery stay. Accordingly, Wang’s motion to 20 stay discovery pending disposition of his motion to dismiss is DENIED. 21 Stipulated Request to Reset Initial Case Management Conference 22 Given the Court’s rulings on EHang’s motion for expedited discovery and Wang’s motion 23 || to stay discovery, the parties’ stipulated request to reset the Initial Case Management Conference 24 is DENIED. The Initial Case Management Conference REMAINS SET on August 26, 2021 at 25 11:00 a.m. The parties SHALL file a Joint Case Management Statement by August 23, 2021. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 Dated: August 20, 2021 Me. ty) BETH LABSON FREEMAN 28 United States District Judge