Corallo v. NSO Group Technologies Limited ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 FRANCESCO CORALLO, 10 Case No. 22-cv-05229-RS Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER SUSPENDING DISCOVERY 12 AND RESETTING BRIEFING NSO GROUP TECHNOLOGIES SCHEDULE FOR MOTION TO 13 LIMITED, et al., DISMISS 14 Defendants. 15 16 Defendant Q Cyber and its wholly owned subsidiary, defendant NSO Group, are Israeli 17 companies (collectively “NSO”). NSO moved to dismiss plaintiff Francesco Corallo’s complaint 18 for lack of personal jurisdiction and/or on grounds of forum non conveniens.1 The motion was 19 supported by a fourteen paragraph declaration from NSO’s chief executive office asserting, in 20 essence, that NSO is based in Israel; that it has no offices in California or elsewhere in the U.S.; 21 that sales of its technology are strictly monitored and regulated by the Government of Israel, and 22 restricted to governmental entities engaged in investigating and preventing criminal activity and 23 terrorism, and; that the technology is operated exclusively by those customers, not NSO itself. 24 NSO also offered a second declaration, six paragraphs long, from an Israeli attorney explaining the 25 barriers he believes would exist under Israeli law to taking depositions there for use in this case. 26 Corallo’s opposition to the motion was due 14 days after it was filed. The morning of the 27 1 deadline, Corallo contacted defense counsel to request a stipulation for a 60-day period in which to 2 conduct jurisdictional discovery, with briefing on the motion to dismiss to resume thereafter. 3 Defense counsel did not reject the request out of hand, but indicated it would need to consult with 4 its clients, which would not be possible prior to that day’s filing deadline, given the international 5 time difference and the observance of the Sabbath in Israel. Quite reasonably, defense counsel also 6 inquired as to the specifics of discovery Corallo was contemplating, but Corallo was “still 7 evaluating” that issue and was unable to respond. 8 Corallo then filed his response to the motion to dismiss, which did not address the merits at 9 all. Instead, Corallo argued jurisdictional discovery was necessary because he needed the 10 opportunity to explore “the veracity of the supporting Declarations, as well as other issues related 11 to jurisdiction and the NSO Defendants’ contacts to the State of California.” Corallo requested that 12 even if jurisdictional discovery were not allowed, he be given an additional 30 days to file an 13 opposition to the motion to dismiss. 14 Corallo’s motion fell short of showing an entitlement to, or need for, jurisdictional 15 discovery. In the interest of resolving matters on the merits, however, the parties were ordered to 16 meet and confer to attempt to reach an agreement on limited, narrowly targeted, discovery that 17 could be completed within 45 days. The parties subsequently reported they had reached agreement 18 that Corallo would serve a document request, “limited to the factual, jurisdictionally related 19 assertions raised in the NSO Defendants’ motion to dismiss and attached declarations.” 20 The request for production of documents Corallo actually served, however, was grossly 21 overbroad, not reasonably limited and narrowly targeted, nor likely to be accomplished in 45 days, 22 as had been tentatively authorized. Although relevance for purposes of discovery is somewhat 23 broader than that which necessarily will be admissible in court proceedings, even when full merits 24 discovery is open, it must be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence 25 and proportional to the needs of the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). 26 The document requests appear premised on an assumption that virtually any “contacts” 27 NSO has had with California or any other part of the United States may be relevant to the 1 jurisdictional inquiry. That is simply not the law. Contacts outside of California are completely 2 irrelevant, and even contacts within California are relevant only to the extent Corallo’s claims can 3 be said to “arise[] out of or relate[] to” those activities. Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 4 374 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2004).2 5 The parties have been unable to negotiate an agreement under which NSO might produce 6 documents responsive to narrowed and more appropriately targeted requests. NSO asserts Corallo 7 was unwilling to discuss such an approach during the meet-and-confer process, instead wanting 8 only to address what he described as “overarching issues” about the applicability of Israeli law. 9 Corallo contends he attempted to see if objections as to relevance, undue burden, or overbreadth 10 could be resolved prior to addressing the impact of Israeli law, but that NSO took the position that 11 any document production is foreclosed by Israeli law, rendering other issues academic. 12 Without deciding the degree to which, if at all, NSO would be allowed to rely on Israeli 13 law to resist production of documents responsive to appropriately tailored requests where the 14 information was critical to a plaintiff’s ability to oppose a motion to dismiss, it has become clear 15 that further discovery proceedings are not warranted at this juncture. Corallo shall file his 16 opposition to the motion to dismiss no later than July 24, 2023.3 NSO may file a reply no later 17 than July 31, 2023. The matter will then be set for hearing, or taken under submission without 18 argument, in the court’s discretion. 19 20 21 22 23 2 There is absolutely no plausible basis to contend there might be general jurisdiction over NSO 24 or that discovery into matters relevant only under such a theory is appropriate. 25 3 Corallo is not precluded from including in his opposition any argument he may wish to make that 26 specific facts material to the analysis likely could be uncovered through discovery. Absent a highly compelling showing, however, the motion will be decided on the existing record. 27 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 3 Dated: July 10, 2023 RICHARD SEEBORG 5 Chief United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CASE No. 22-cv-05229-RS