1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE Case No. 24-cv-02220-JST

COMPANY,

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING REQUESTS FOR 9 STAY OF DISCOVERY v. 10 Re: ECF Nos. 105, 107 INSPUR GROUP CO., LTD., et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 Now before the Court are joint discovery dispute letters regarding whether Defendants 14 Kaytus Singapore PTE. Ltd. and Inspur Group Co. Ltd. must participate in discovery pending 15 resolution of their motions to dismiss. ECF Nos. 105, 107. For the reasons explained below, the 16 Court will stay discovery as to these Defendants pending resolution of their motions to dismiss. 17 “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket stays of 18 discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” Serenium, Inc. v. Zhou, No. 20-CV- 19 02132-BLF (NC), 2021 WL 7541379, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2021) (quoting In re Nexus 6p 20 Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 17-cv-02185-BLF, 2017 WL 3581188, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2017)). 21 “Indeed, district courts look unfavorably upon such blanket stays of discovery.” Cain v. JPay, 22 Inc., No. 2:21-CV-07401-FLA (AGRx), 2022 WL 1840342, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2022) 23 (citation and quotation omitted). Nonetheless, “district courts have wide discretion in controlling 24 discovery, including by staying discovery.” HUB Int’l Nw. LLC v. Larson, No. 2:22-CV-01418- 25 TL, 2023 WL 2527150, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 15, 2023) (citing Little v. City of Seattle, 863 26 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988)); Petitt v. Altman, No. C21-1366RSL, 2022 WL 670921, at *1 27 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 7, 2022). 1 courts in the Ninth Circuit often employ a two-part test:

2 First, the pending motion must be potentially dispositive of the entire case, or at least dispositive on the issue at which discovery is 3 aimed. Second, the court must determine whether the pending, potentially dispositive motion can be decided absent additional 4 discovery. . . . Discovery should proceed if either prong of the test is not met. 5 Espineli v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00698-KJM-CKD, 2019 WL 3080808, 6 at *1–2 (E.D. Cal. July 15, 2019) (quoting Mlejnecky v. Olympus Imaging Am., Inc., No. 2:10-CV- 7 02630 JAM KJN, 2011 WL 489743, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2011)). “In applying this two-factor 8 test, the court deciding the motion to stay must take a ‘preliminary peek’ at the merits of the 9 pending dispositive motion to assess whether a stay is warranted.” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 10 278 F.R.D. 597, 602 (D. Nev. 2011). “If the party moving to stay satisfies both prongs, a 11 protective order may issue; otherwise, discovery should proceed.” Id. (citation omitted). 12 Courts are more likely to stay discovery where a dispositive motion “raises jurisdictional 13 issues that may dispose of the entire case.” Snake River Waterkeeper v. J.R. Simplot Co., No. 14 1:23-CV-00239-DCN, 2023 WL 5748152, at *3 (D. Idaho Sept. 6, 2023) (collecting cases); see 15 also Comm. for Immigrant Rts. of Sonoma Cnty. v. Cnty. of Sonoma, No. 08-CV-4220 PJH, 2009 16 WL 10692620, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2009) (“Particularly when a threshold subject matter 17 jurisdictional question is raised by a motion to dismiss, a district court should use its discretion to 18 defer discovery of issues unrelated to jurisdiction until it resolves the pending jurisdictional issue 19 first.”); Calvary Chapel San Jose v. Cody, No. 20-CV-03794-BLF, 2021 WL 5353883, at *1 20 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2021) (same). 21 Here, Inspur Group argues that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over it because it has 22 “no relevant contacts in the United States.” ECF No. 84 at 7. It contends that HPE pleads no facts 23 in support of its “stream of commerce” theory of personal jurisdiction over Inspur Group, and that 24 Inspur Group is a Chinese company that has not done business in the United States; has not made, 25 used, sold, offered for sale or imported for sale any of the accused products anywhere in the 26 world; and has not, alone or with the aid of another, placed any accused products into the stream 27 of commerce in California or anywhere else in the United States. 1 Likewise, Kaytus Singapore argues that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over it 2 || because it is a Singapore company with no presence in California, and it does not sell, offer to sell, 3 manufacture, or import any of the accused products in the United States. ECF No. 85 at 7. 4 If the Court accepts these arguments, Inspur Group’s and Kaytus Singapore’s motions will 5 be potentially dispositive of the case as to them. HPE makes thorough arguments in opposition to 6 || the motions, and HPE may well prevail. But the motions are sufficiently substantive that it is 7 appropriate to wait before forcing Inspur Group and Kaytus Singapore to incur the burden and 8 || expense of discovery. The Court emphasizes that this only represents a “preliminary peek” at the 9 merits, and that HPE may prevail in its arguments that the Court has personal jurisdiction over 10 both Defendants. See Calvary Chapel, 2021 WL 5353883, at *2. 11 The Court also finds Inspur Group’s and Kaytus Singapore’s motions can be resolved 12 || without additional discovery. HPE has asked for jurisdictional discovery in its opposition to those 5 13 || motions. ECF No. 92 at 30; ECF No. 91 at 19. But that merely shows HPE’s recognition that it 14 || will not be conducting discovery on other subjects if the Court finds that personal jurisdiction over 3 15 Inspur Group and Kaytus Singapore is lacking. See, e.g., Orchid Biosciences, Inc. v. St. Louis 16 Univ., 198 F.R.D. 670, 675 (S.D. Cal. 2001) (staying discovery proceedings generally but 3 17 permitting jurisdictional discovery). The Court makes no decision now on HPE’s request for 18 || jurisdictional discovery, which will be determined as part of the Court’s resolution of Inspur 19 Group’s and Kaytus Singapore’s motions to dismiss. For now, however, Inspur Group’s and 20 || Kaytus Singapore’s requests for a stay of discovery are granted. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: October 29, 2024 . .

23 : JON S. “4 ited States District Judge 25 26 27 28