Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-02366/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-02366-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHAN-WOONG PARK,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-02366-BLF 

ORDER DENYING STAY OF 

DISCOVERY

[Re: ECF 26]

Defendant Chan-Woon Park (“Park”) filed a motion for a stay of discovery pending 

resolution of his motion to dismiss. Mot., ECF 26. Having considered the papers filed by both 

parties, the Court finds this matter suitable for resolution without oral argument, and the hearing 

scheduled for this motion is VACATED. For the reasons set forth below, Park’s request for a stay 

of discovery is DENIED.

Plaintiff Power Integrations, Inc. (“Power Integrations”) is a corporation that supplies 

electronic components in high voltage power conversions systems and had previously employed 

Park. Compl. ¶¶ 5-6, ECF 1. On April 29, 2016, Power Integrations filed suit against Park, 

alleging that Park has breached his employee agreement with Power Integrations requiring him to 

turn over all right, title and interest to certain inventions. See generally Compl. Park filed a 

motion to dismiss on August 22, 2016, and subsequently filed the instant motion to stay discovery 

pending the outcome of the motion to dismiss. ECF 13, 26.

“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket stays of 

discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 

F.R.D. 597, 600 (D. Nev. 2011). “Had the Federal Rules contemplated that a motion to dismiss 

under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6) would stay discovery, the Rules would contain a provision to that 

Case 5:16-cv-02366-BLF Document 38 Filed 12/02/16 Page 1 of 4
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

effect. In fact, such a notion is directly at odds with the need for expeditious resolution of 

litigation.” Gray v. First Winthrop Corp., 133 F.R.D. 39, 40 (N.D. Cal. 1990). However, a 

district court does have “wide discretion in controlling discovery,” Little v. City of Seattle, 863 

F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988), and that discretion extends to staying discovery upon a showing of 

“good cause,” see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(A). Good cause for staying discovery may exist when 

the district court is “‘convinced that the plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief.’” 

Wenger v. Monroe, 282 F.3d 1068, 1077 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Wood v. McEwen, 644 F.2d 797, 

801 (9th Cir. 1981)); see also Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 601 (“Staying discovery when a court is 

convinced that the plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief furthers the goal of efficiency 

for the court and the litigants.”). Under Ninth Circuit law, “[a] party seeking a stay of discovery 

carries the heavy burden of making a ‘strong showing’ why discovery should be denied.” Gray, 

133 F.R.D. at 40 (citation omitted). 

Courts in this district have applied a two-prong test to determine whether discovery should 

be stayed pending resolution of a dispositive motion. See, e.g., Gibbs v. Carson, No. 13-0860, 

2014 WL172187, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2014); Hamilton v. Rhoads, No. C 11-0227 RMW 

(PR), 2011 WL 5085504, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2011); Pac. Lumber Co. v. Nat’l Union Fire 

Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 220 F.R.D. 349, 351 (N.D. Cal. 2003). First, a pending motion must be 

potentially dispositive of the entire case, or at least dispositive on the issue at which discovery is 

directed. Pac. Lumber Co., 220 F.R.D. at 351 (citation omitted). Second, the court must 

determine whether the pending motion can be decided absent discovery. Id. at 352 (citation 

omitted). “If the Court answers these two questions in the affirmative, a protective order may 

issue. However, if either prong of this test is not established, discovery proceeds.” Id. In 

applying this two-factor test, the court must take a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the pending 

dispositive motion to assess whether a stay is warranted. Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 602. 

Park seeks a stay of discovery because according to Park, his motion to dismiss is

dispositive of the entire case and can be decided without discovery. Mot. 2, ECF 26. Specifically, 

Park contends that the Court has no personal jurisdiction as to the entire action and no subject 

matter jurisdiction as the third claim of the complaint. Id. at 3-4.

Case 5:16-cv-02366-BLF Document 38 Filed 12/02/16 Page 2 of 4
3

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

In opposition, Power Integrations argues that Park’s motion is not necessarily dispositive. 

Opp. ECF 28. To that end, Power Integrations disputes Park’s arguments concerning subject 

matter and personal jurisdiction, noting its own contentions that diversity jurisdiction exists in this 

action between a domestic corporation and a foreign domicile, and that Park has engaged in 

conduct sufficient to support general and specific personal jurisdiction. Id. at 6. Power 

Integrations further notes that Park’s argument regarding the relevance of Korean patent law is 

without merit. Id. at 5. It also requested leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery in its opposition 

to the motion to dismiss. Id. at 9-10. Thus, even if the court finds the current complaint 

allegations are deficient, Power Integrations argues that it will be permitted leave to undertake 

jurisdictional discovery and Park’s arguments on personal jurisdiction will not resolve the case. 

Id. at 10. Furthermore, Power Integrations claims that the discovery it seeks overlaps with any 

jurisdictional discovery it may engage because Park’s interactions with its customers in California 

are relevant to the issue of personal jurisdiction. Id.

Although the Court finds probable that the motion to dismiss could be decided without 

discovery, it is unclear whether Park’s motion to dismiss will be dispositive of the entire case. 

Indeed, a “preliminary peek” at Park’s motion to dismiss and Power Integrations’ opposition

reveals that issues of subject matter and personal jurisdiction are the subjects of reasonable 

dispute, such that it cannot be confidently said that Park will succeed in ending the action or that 

his arguments are entirely meritorious. For example, Park cannot prevail on his argument that this 

Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction unless the Court agrees with his characterization that this

case actually involves Korean patent law, despite the non-patent legal claims Power Integrations

asserts. Mot. to Dismiss 6-7, ECF 13; Opp. to Mot. to Dismiss 7, ECF 18. Park does not, 

however, contest that diversity jurisdiction otherwise exists. Similarly, the Court concurs with 

Power Integrations that a finding for Park on the issue of personal jurisdiction may not completely 

resolve this action because Power Integrations may still be entitled to jurisdictional discovery, 

some of which is already encompassed in the discovery it seeks. Opp. at 10; Lofton v. Bank of 

Am. Corp., No. 07-05892-SI, 2008 WL 2037606, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 12, 2008) (finding that the 

defendants “do not meet the required ‘strong showing’ [for staying discovery] because plaintiff is 

Case 5:16-cv-02366-BLF Document 38 Filed 12/02/16 Page 3 of 4
4

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

entitled to discovery on the merits that may inform his opposition to [defendants’] jurisdictional 

motion”).

Finally, as to Park’s argument for staying discovery until a decision is made regarding 

relating the present case to Power Integrations, Inc. v. Chan-Woong Park, 5:16-cv-02367 (N.D. 

Cal. filed Apr. 29, 2016), the argument is moot as the two case are now related. Mot. 5-6; Ord 

relating case, ECF 33.

For the reasons set forth above, Park’s request for a stay of discovery is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 2, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-02366-BLF Document 38 Filed 12/02/16 Page 4 of 4