1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 FUTURE MOTION, INC., Case No. 21-cv-06771-EMC

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

9 v. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT

DISCOVERY, AND DEFERRING

10 JW BATTERIES LLC, RULING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION

TO DISMISS

11 Defendant. Docket Nos. 16, 24 12 13 14 Plaintiff Future Motion, Inc. is a company that markets and sells “the ONEWHEEL® line 15 of self-balancing electronically motorized skateboards, along with related accessories, replacement 16 parts, and merchandise.” Compl. ¶ 9. The skateboards have processors and software incorporated 17 into them that control various functions and safety features – e.g., “monitoring the status of the 18 skateboard and causing it to slow down or stop if it approaches an unsafe operating condition.” 19 Compl. ¶ 11. Future Motion has filed suit against Defendant JW Batteries LLC because the latter 20 sells a computer processor chip that is allegedly intended to circumvent the safety and 21 technological measures implemented by Future Motion for its skateboards. See Compl. ¶ 20. 22 Currently pending before the Court are two motions: (1) JW’s motion to dismiss for lack of 23 personal jurisdiction and/or improper venue and (2) Future Motion’s motion for leave to conduct 24 jurisdictional discovery. Having considered the parties’ briefs and accompanying submissions, the 25 Court finds the matter suitable for resolution without oral argument and therefore VACATES the 26 hearing on the two motions. 27 The Court hereby GRANTS Future’s motion for leave to take discovery. See Laub v. 1 with broad discretion to permit or deny discovery”); see also Calix Networks, Inc. v. Wi-Lan, Inc., 2 No. 09-cv-06038-CRB (DMR), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97657 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2010) (noting 3 that “a plaintiff need not make out a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction before it can obtain 4 jurisdictional discovery[;] [r]ather, a plaintiff must present a ‘colorable basis’ for jurisdiction, or 5 ‘some evidence’ constituting a lesser showing than a prima facie case”). In a recent decision, the 6 Ninth Circuit noted that “[t]he question of jurisdiction in the Internet age is not well settled” and 7 indicated that jurisdictional discovery should be permitted where the record is insufficiently 8 developed and further discovery might demonstrate facts sufficient to constitute a basis for 9 jurisdiction. Good Job Games Bilism Yazilim Ve Pazarlama A.S. v. SayGames, LLC, No. 20- 10 16123, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 36507, at *2-3 (9th Cir. Dec. 10, 2021). The Court finds 11 jurisdictional discovery is appropriate here. 12 Because the Court is giving Future Motion the opportunity to take jurisdictional discovery, 13 the Court DEFERS ruling on JW’s motion to dismiss. The parties shall promptly meet and confer 14 regarding (1) a timeframe for Future Motion to take jurisdictional discovery and (2) a timeframe 15 for the parties to file supplemental briefs regarding the issue of personal jurisdiction, once 16 jurisdictional discovery is complete. The parties shall file a stipulation on these matters within 17 two weeks of the date of this order. 18 This order disposes of Docket No. 24. The ruling on Docket No. 16 is deferred. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 Dated: December 14, 2021 23 24 ______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

25 United States District Judge 26 27