AJY International, Inc. v. Paldo Co., Ltd.
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|August 19, 2017
Amended Discovery Order. The earlier version of the filed order was not the court's final order and was filed in error by court staff. The attached amended order does not contain the provision staying the discovery pending the decision on the motion to dismiss. For context on the stay issue: initially, the court was inclined to stay the discovery until after the hearing on the pending motion to dismiss. In part, the court was concerned that the dispute was spinning up into more than the amount at stake in the litigation and thought it might manage discovery more proportionally to the litigation. But as it discussed with the parties at the hearing, not only do the case deadlines make that approach not viable, but also, the court was more convinced after the hearing that the discovery -- which also is relevant to AJY's lost-income damages claim -- must be produced now. The court's revised order thus omits the stay language that was included in error and clarifies the &q uot;dual purpose" conclusion in two other places. Because the error was the court's, the court does not wait the customary four days under the local rules for a response to the administrative motion. The court points out that its amended or der does modify slightly the section titled "Information Specific to Mr. Ji" to address a point made in Paldo's administrative motion. In its previous order, the court observed that Paldo probably had some of the information, and it t hus ordered that Mr. Ji did not need to produce duplicate information. The goal was to manage burden and proportionality. But given Paldo's representation in its administrative motion that it has no information, the court modifies its previous o rder to eliminate the limitation and orders the following: "Under the circumstances, the court orders (more plainly) that if Mr. Ji has responsive documents, he must produce them, and if he does not, he must say so to Paldo. "As revised, the order addresses the disputes sufficiently. It orders discovery for two primary reasons: Paldo's counterclaims and AJY's lost-profits damages claim. And its order is unequivocal. (Beeler, Laurel) (Filed on 8/19/2017)
|August 17, 2017
ORDER by Judge Laurel Beeler granting in part and denying in part 80 Discovery Letter Brief; granting in part and denying in part 81 Discovery Letter Brief. Discovery is order as described in the attached document. (lblc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/17/2017)
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system.
A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?