Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-mc-80277/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-mc-80277-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HRC-HAINAN HOLDING COMPANY, 

LLC,

Applicants,

v.

YIHAN HU, et al.,

Respondents.

Case No. 19-mc-80277-TSH 

ORDER DENYING EMERGENCY 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Re: Dkt. No. 63

On February 25, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part Applicants’ motion to 

compel and Respondents’ motion to quash. ECF No. 47. The Court’s order set a March 6, 2020 

production deadline for documents. Id. at 27. Late in the day on March 5, Respondents filed a

motion for stay pending appeal. ECF No. 53. The motion was largely recycled from a prior 

motion to stay in a previous appeal, see ECF No. 21, with a new page of argument about law of 

the case. It probably didn’t take nine days to write that one page of new argument.

So, let’s think about this. By waiting until the evening of March 5 to move for a stay, 

Respondents all but ensured the Court would not be able to issue a reasoned decision on the 

motion by the time of the production deadline the following day. Indeed, the March 5 motion 

seemed to contemplate that. In the conclusion, Respondents stated that if the Court were inclined 

to deny a stay pending appeal, “Respondents request the opportunity for oral argument on this 

motion, and Respondents request that the Court provide a briefing schedule that permits adequate 

time for them to submit a reply to any response from Applicants.” ECF No. 53 at 8. Obviously, 

none of that could have happened by March 6. 

By waiting until the night of March 5 to move for a stay, Respondents essentially 

guaranteed they would be in violation of the Court’s February 25 order, no matter which way the 

Case 3:19-mc-80277-TSH Document 64 Filed 03/18/20 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Court ruled on the stay motion because a ruling wouldn’t come fast enough. True, Applicants 

moved at the speed of light and filed their opposition on March 6. ECF No. 55. But the Court has 

to read papers and consider them, review case law, and write an order. The nearly inevitable result 

of waiting until the evening of March 5 to move for a stay of an order requiring documents to be 

produced by March 6 was to place Respondents in violation of the Court’s order. And indeed, 

they have been in violation of it for the past 12 days. 

So, now that the Court has denied the stay pending appeal, see ECF No. 61, in less than 24 

hours Respondents managed to draft and file an emergency motion for a temporary stay – it turns 

out that they can file things quickly when they want to. They request a stay until March 20 (two 

days from now) so they can file a motion for a stay pending appeal with the Ninth Circuit. 

The Court is confused by the motion. An emergency motion usually identifies a bad thing 

that will happen unless the motion is granted and asks the Court to stop the bad thing. This 

motion doesn’t say what the bad thing is. Is the idea that being in violation of a Court order for 12 

days is okay, but 14 days is too long? Or maybe the idea is that it’s okay to be in violation of a 

Court order as long as you have a motion to stay on file, and we’re not supposed to notice when 

you filed the stay motion? Applicants have noticed; they have a pending motion for sanctions 

about this. See ECF No. 59. 

If the emergency is that Respondents are in violation of the Court’s order, that emergency 

began 12 days ago, and Respondents caused it by waiting until the night of March 5 to move for a 

stay. And if the emergency is something else, Respondents don’t say what it is. Their emergency 

motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 18, 2020

THOMAS S. HIXSON

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:19-mc-80277-TSH Document 64 Filed 03/18/20 Page 2 of 2