1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SPORTS MARKETING MONTERREY Case No. 22-cv-08939-SI

GROUP LLC,

8 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ Plaintiff, MOTION FOR EXPEDITED 9 DISCOVERY AND TO MODIFY THE v. BRIEFING AND HEARING 10 SCHEDULE ON MOTION FOR SOCIOS SERVICES US INC., et al., PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 11 Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 30 12 On January 13, 2023, the Court held a hearing on defendants’ motion for expedited discovery 13 and to modify the briefing and hearing schedule on plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. 14 Defendants seek to propound ten requests for production of documents that they assert are 15 necessary in order to defend against the preliminary injunction motion, and they request that the 16 briefing and hearing schedule be extended to permit that discovery. Defendants argue that the 17 requests are narrowly tailored because, for example, some of them seek “documents sufficient to 18 show” rather than “all documents.” Defendants also contend that the discovery is necessary because 19 plaintiff’s evidence in support of the motion for preliminary injunction is vague as to a number of 20 issues, such as information about the types of “fan engagement opportunities” that plaintiff offers 21 and when plaintiff first became aware of socios.com. 22 Plaintiff opposes, arguing that defendants have not demonstrated good cause because, inter 23 alia, the discovery is burdensome and not narrowly tailored to issues raised by the preliminary 24 injunction motion, and because defendants can oppose the motion by arguing that plaintiff has not 25 met its burden rather than by conducting merits discovery. Plaintiff has also attached to its 26 opposition additional evidence addressing some of the topics covered by the document requests, and 27 states that it will provide some further discovery on January 16. At the hearing, plaintiff’s counsel 1 also represented that Mr. Villalobos’ knowledge of socios.com (which is discussed in his 2 || declaration) is plaintiffs knowledge, and that no one at the company was aware of socios.com 3 || before Mr. Villalobos. Plaintiff opposes any extension of the briefing and hearing schedule, noting 4 || that the parties negotiated the current schedule and that plaintiff had agreed to earlier delays 5 requested by defendants, and that the Major League Season begins on February 24, 2023. 6 A district court may permit expedited discovery “upon a showing of good cause.” Semitool, 7 Inc. v. Tokyo Electron America, Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D. Cal. 2002). Good cause exists 8 || “where the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs 9 || the prejudice to the responding party.” Jd. To determine whether good cause justifies expedited 10 || discovery, courts often consider factors including “(1) whether a preliminary injunction is pending; 11 (2) the breadth of the discovery requests; (3) the purpose for requesting the expedited discovery; (4) 12 || the burden on the defendants to comply with the requests; and (5) how far in advance of the typical 13 discovery process the request was made.” Am. LegalNet, Inc. v. Davis, 673 F. Supp. 2d 1063, 1067 14 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (quoting Disability Rights Council of Greater Wash. v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit 3 15 || Auth., 234 F.R.D. 4,7 (D.D.C. 2006)). a 16 For the reasons stated at the hearing, the Court DENIES defendants’ motion. Plaintiff has 3 17 voluntarily agreed to provide defendants with a significant amount of the information sought by 18 defendants, and defendants are free to argue that plaintiff has failed to meet its burden to obtain a 19 || preliminary injunction because, for example, plaintiffs evidence is too generalized. The Court finds 20 || that any further discovery at this juncture is too burdensome and that defendants have not 21 demonstrated good cause. As discussed at the hearing, the Court will grant defendants an extension 22 || until January 20, 2023, to file the opposition. The remainder of the preliminary injunction schedule 23 || is unchanged. Further, it is the order of the Court that the documents produced by plaintiff shall be 24 || “outside counsel’s eyes only.” 25 IT IS SO ORDERED.

27 Dated: January 13, 2023

SUSAN ILLSTON

28 United States District Judge