Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-mc-80277/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-mc-80277-0/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

IN RE APPLICATION OF HRC-HAINAN 

HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, ET AL.

Case No. 19-mc-80277-TSH 

ORDER GRANTING STAY PENDING 

APPEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 21

Respondents Yihan Hu, et al., move for a stay pending their appeal of the Court’s January 

16, 2020 order. Applicants HRC-Hainan Holding Company, LLC, et al., oppose the motion. The 

Court considers “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to 

succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) 

whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; 

and (4) where the public interest lies.” Lair v. Bullock, 697 F.3d 1200, 1203 (9th Cir. 2012)

(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

As to the first factor, the standard does not require that the moving party is more likely 

than not to win on appeal. See id. at 1204. It’s enough for the appeal to present a serious legal 

question. See id. Here, one of the issues on appeal is whether a private arbitration tribunal is a 

“foreign . . . tribunal” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a). There is a Circuit split on this 

point, compare In re Application to Obtain Discovery for Use in Foreign Proceedings, 939 F.3d 

710, 717-31 (6th Cir. 2019), with Republic of Kazakhstan v. Biedermann Int’l, 168 F.3d 880, 883 

(5th Cir. 1999), and National Broadcasting Co., Inc., v. Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., 165 F.3d 184, 

191 (2d Cir. 1999), and the Ninth Circuit has not yet decided that issue. Thus, Respondents’

appeal raises a serious legal question. 

Case 3:19-mc-80277-TSH Document 29 Filed 01/23/20 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

As to the second factor, the absence of a stay would moot Respondents’ appeal. If 

discovery proceeded, it would likely be completed before the Court of Appeals would be able to 

rule on the merits of the appeal. This qualifies as irreparable harm.

On the third factor, Applicants argue, with some force, that the stay could run out the clock 

on their ability to use the discovery for the CIETAC proceeding. They don’t argue that delay 

would harm their ability to use the discovery before the Hainan Court, however, and they do 

contend that their discovery requests seek information that is relevant to the Hainan Court 

proceeding. Since the ability to use section 1782 to obtain discovery for use before CIETAC is 

itself the serious legal issue presented for appeal, the Court discounts that as irreparable harm. 

After all, maybe the Ninth Circuit will say that isn’t permitted at all.

As to the fourth factor, it’s hard to see how the public interest is affected by this discovery 

dispute between private parties. 

Accordingly, after balancing the relevant factors, the Court orders that its January 16 order 

is stayed pending appeal.

Finally, the Court observes that Northern District of California General Order No. 44 states 

in paragraph E.3:

Upon filing, unless exempted by Local Rule, order of a judge of this 

court, or other provision of this general order, all civil miscellaneous 

matters will be randomly assigned in the first instance to a magistrate 

judge who will either resolve the matter or, if necessary, prepare a 

report and recommendation and request assignment of the matter to 

the district judge who was the general duty judge on the date the 

miscellaneous matter was filed. Any objections to the magistrate 

judge’s order or report and recommendation will be resolved by that 

district judge. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

This civil miscellaneous matter was assigned to the undersigned magistrate judge, who issued an 

order on January 16, 2020. Respondents then filed a notice of appeal directly with the Ninth 

Circuit without seeking review by a district judge. 

Dated: January 23, 2020

THOMAS S. HIXSON

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:19-mc-80277-TSH Document 29 Filed 01/23/20 Page 2 of 2