Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01267/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01267-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

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

For the Northern District of California 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LILITH GAMES (SHANGHAI) CO. 

LTD., 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

UCOOL, INC. AND UCOOL LTD., 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 15-CV-01267-SC

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING AND 

HEARING SCHEDULE FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MOTION 

I. INTRODUCTION 

On April 3, 2015 Plaintiff Lilith Games (Shanghai) Co. Ltd. 

("Lilith") filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction seeking to 

enjoin Defendants uCool, Inc. and uCool Ltd. (collectively 

"uCool")from reproducing, copying, preparing any derivative works, 

and/or distributing any of Lilith's trade secrets and/or copyrights 

allegedly contained in uCool's video game, Heroes Charge. ECF No. 

17. On April 22, 2015, Lilith withdrew its motion and re-filed it 

on May 5, 2015. ECF No. 30 ("Prel. Inj. Mot."). On May 18, 2015, 

the Court stayed briefing on the motion for preliminary injunction 

Case 5:15-cv-01267-LHK Document 48 Filed 06/04/15 Page 1 of 8
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

For the Northern District of California 

pending resolution of three scheduling and discovery motions filed 

by uCool. Those motions are now before the Court: (1) Defendants' 

Motion to Enlarge Time to Oppose Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary 

Injunction (ECF No. 32) ("Mot. to Enlarge Time to Oppose"); (2) 

Defendants' Motion for Expedited Discovery to Respond to 

Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 33) ("Mot. 

for Exped. Disc."); and (3) Defendants' Motion to Shorten Time for 

Briefing and Hearing Regarding uCool's Motion for Expedited 

Discovery (ECF No. 34) ("Mot. to Shorten Time for Briefing"). 

 Having considered the parties' moving and response papers, the 

Court finds these motions appropriate for decision without oral 

argument under Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) and hereby (1) GRANTS IN 

PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant's Motion to Enlarge Time to 

Oppose Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction; (2) DENIES 

Defendants' Motion for Expedited Discovery to Respond to 

Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction; and (3) DENIES as 

moot Defendants' Motion to Shorten Time for Briefing and Hearing 

Regarding uCool's Motion for Expedited Discovery. 

II. BACKGROUND 

 Plaintiff Lilith is a video game developer that released the 

game Dao Ta Chuan Qi (translated as "Sword and Tower")1 in China in 

February 2014. Lilith claims to own the copyrights in Sword and 

Tower's computer software. Lilith also claims that it maintains 

the Sword and Tower source code as a trade secret. In March 2015, 

Lilith decided to release Sword and Tower in other countries 

 

1

 The game has also been referred to as Dota Legends (see ECF No. 

43-01 ¶ 2). 

Case 5:15-cv-01267-LHK Document 48 Filed 06/04/15 Page 2 of 8
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

For the Northern District of California 

including the United States, Japan, and certain European countries. 

Defendant uCool is a game marketer who published the game 

Heroes Charge in the United States in August 2014. 

Lilith filed its Complaint on March 18, 2015 and its First 

Amended Complaint on April 8, 2015. In its first claim for relief, 

Lilith alleges that uCool unlawfully gained access to Lilith's 

copyrighted computer software code embodied in Sword and Tower and 

copied it into the source code embodied in Heroes Charge, which in 

addition to allegedly containing the same source code, also 

allegedly contains the same or similar ideas and expressions of 

those ideas. Because Sword and Tower is not a United States work 

as defined in 17 U.S.C. Section 101, Lilith brings its copyright 

claim under the Berne Convention, an international agreement 

governing copyright. In Lilith's second claim for relief, Lilith 

claims that the Sword and Tower source code is also a trade secret 

and that uCool misappropriated that trade secret in violation of 

California's Uniform Trade Secrets Act, California Civil Code 

Section 3426, when it allegedly gained access to and used the Sword 

and Tower source code. Lilith's third, fourth, and fifth claims 

for relief allege that uCool engaged in an unlawful business 

practice in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law by 

misappropriating Lilith's trade secrets. Lilith seeks damages, 

fees and costs, injunctive relief, and other relief. 

On April 3, 2015, Lilith filed a motion for preliminary 

injunction seeking to enjoin uCool from reproducing, copying, 

preparing any derivative works, and/or distributing any of Lilith's 

trade secrets and/or copyrights allegedly contained in Heroes 

Charge. On April 22, 2015, Lilith withdrew its motion and re-filed 

Case 5:15-cv-01267-LHK Document 48 Filed 06/04/15 Page 3 of 8
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

For the Northern District of California 

it on May 5, 2015. On May 11 and 12, uCool filed three discovery 

and scheduling motions related to Lilith's motion for preliminary 

injunction.2

 Consequently, the Court stayed briefing on Lilith's 

motion for preliminary injunction pending the resolution of uCool's 

three motions, which are now before the Court.3

 

Taken together, uCool's discovery and scheduling motions 

propose three alternative results as to the briefing, hearing, and 

discovery related to Lilith's motion for preliminary injunction: 

(1) off-calendar Plaintiff Lilith's currently pending 

preliminary injunction motion, allow the parties to 

conduct discovery in the normal course, then reschedule 

the preliminary injunction hearing for a date in 

September that is convenient for the Court, 

(2) allow uCool time to take expedited discovery on the 

preliminary injunction motion, uCool files an opposition 

to Lilith's motion on August 7, Lilith files a reply in 

support of its motion on August 14, and a hearing is held 

on August 28, or 

(3) grant uCool an extension to at least July 17 to file 

its opposition. 

Mot. for Exped. Disc. at i. Lilith opposes these motions and asks 

the Court to determine its motion for preliminary injunction on the 

papers and any live testimony permitted by the Court according to 

the original briefing and hearing schedule. Lilith also argues 

that uCool's motion for expedited discovery is now moot given that 

discovery commenced immediately after the parties' Rule 26(f) 

 

2

 On May 29, 2015, Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. ("Blizzard") and 

Valve Corporation ("Valve") filed a joint motion to intervene, 

alleging that "both [Lilith and uCool] have infringed [Blizzard's 

and Valve's] copyrights in their hugely popular computer games, 

through the very games at issue in this Action." ECF No. 42 ("Mot. 

to Interv.") at 1. 

3

 The hearing for Lilith's preliminary injunction is currently 

scheduled for June 12, 2015. 

Case 5:15-cv-01267-LHK Document 48 Filed 06/04/15 Page 4 of 8
5 

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

For the Northern District of California 

conference on Tuesday, May 26, 2015. 

III. LEGAL STANDARD 

A. Enlarge or Shorten Time 

Local Rule 6-3 provides, in pertinent part, that a motion 

enlarging or shortening time must be accompanied by an affidavit 

that "(1) sets forth with particularity, the reasons for the 

requested enlargement . . . (3) identifies the substantial harm or 

prejudice that would occur if the Court did not change the 

time . . ." Civ. L.R. 6-3 (a)(1), (a)(3). Once a particularized 

showing is made, "requests for extensions of time made before the 

applicable deadline has passed should normally . . . be granted in 

the absence of bad faith or prejudice to the adverse party." 

Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 

2010) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 

B. Expedited Discovery 

In the Ninth Circuit, courts use the "good cause" standard to 

determine whether expedited discovery should be granted. UMG 

Recordings, Inc. v. Doe, No. 08-1193 SBA, 2008 WL 4104214, *4 (N.D. 

Cal. 2008). "Good cause may be found where the need for expedited 

discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, 

outweighs the prejudice to the responding party." Rovio Entm't 

Ltd. v. Royal Plush Toys, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 2d 1086, 1099 (N.D. 

Cal. 2012) (citing Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 

F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D. Cal. 2002)). In considering whether good 

cause exists, factors courts may consider include: (1) whether a 

preliminary injunction is pending; (2) the breadth of the discovery 

request; (3) the purpose for requesting the expedited discovery; 

Case 5:15-cv-01267-LHK Document 48 Filed 06/04/15 Page 5 of 8
6 

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

For the Northern District of California 

(4) the burden on the defendants to comply with the requests; and 

(5) how far in advance of the typical discovery process the request 

was made. Am. LegalNet, Inc. v. Davis, 673 F. Supp. 2d 1063, 1067 

(C.D. Cal. 2009). The party seeking expedited discovery has the 

burden of showing good cause. Id. at 1066. 

IV. DISCUSSION 

The Court understands that Lilith wishes to resolve the issue 

of preliminary relief as quickly as possible in order to prevent 

the irreparable harm that Lilith alleges is caused by the 

continuing sale of uCool's products. However, Lilith's motion 

presents complex issues of copyright infringement and trade secret 

misappropriation in the use of source code in video games, and it 

seeks an extraordinary form of relief. Accordingly, limited 

discovery prior to further briefing and a hearing on Lilith's 

motion for preliminary injunction is appropriate. 

Discovery became available after the parties held their Rule 

26(f) conference on May 26, 2015. uCool propounded discovery on 

Lilith that same day. Nevertheless, uCool argues that its motion 

for expedited discovery is not moot because it needs "an order to 

obtain discovery before a response to the preliminary injunction 

motion is due." ECF No. 44 ("Exp. Disc. Reply"). In other words, 

uCool claims that its motion is properly understood as a motion to 

expedite Lilith's production, though uCool fails to provide a 

proposed expedited deadline for that production. Id. 

 Much of what uCool requests in its motion for expedited 

discovery has already been propounded, including the requested 

interrogatories and requests for production. Lilith's responses to 

Case 5:15-cv-01267-LHK Document 48 Filed 06/04/15 Page 6 of 8
7 

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

For the Northern District of California 

these requests are currently due 30 days from May 26, 2015. See 

ECF No. 41-17 ("Discovery Requests"). The Court declines to 

expedite Lilith's production any further. 

uCool's motion for expedited discovery also includes a Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) deposition notice on a broad range 

of topics that are largely duplicative of its other discovery 

requests and/or outside the scope of the preliminary injunction 

motion. See ECF No. 33-3 ("Depo. Notice") at 4. A 30(b)(6) 

witness "must testify about information known or reasonably 

available to the organization." Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). Given 

the broad range of topics in uCool's proposed notice, Lilith would 

have to interview several employees and review a significant number 

of documents and communications in a short period of time. 

Further, 30(b)(6) depositions generally are not taken at the 

inception of discovery. See Semitool, 208 F.R.D. at 276 (granting 

expedited discovery in part because request did not involve "a free 

ranging deposition for which a representative of Defendants may not 

have had sufficient time or information with which to prepare"). 

Because Lilith would be unduly burdened and because uCool's 

discovery requests can be addressed through already propounded 

interrogatories and requests for production, the Court denies 

uCool's request for an expedited 30(b)(6) deposition. 

Accordingly, the Court hereby adopts the following briefing and 

hearing schedule for Lilith's preliminary injunction motion: 

Task Deadline 

Document production and interrogatories 

due (produced on a rolling basis) 

June 25, 2015 

Case 5:15-cv-01267-LHK Document 48 Filed 06/04/15 Page 7 of 8
8 

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

For the Northern District of California 

uCool's opposition brief due July 17, 2015 

Lilith's reply brief due July 24, 2015 

Hearing on motion for preliminary 

injunction 

July 31, 2015, 10:00 AM, 

Courtroom 1, 17th Floor, 

San Francisco Courthouse 

V. CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby rules as follows: 

(1) Defendant's Motion To Enlarge Time To Oppose Plaintiff's Motion 

For Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 

The parties will take discovery on the preliminary injunction 

motion; uCool will file an opposition to Lilith's motion for 

preliminary injunction on July 17, 2015; Lilith will file a reply 

in support of its motion on July 24, 2015; and a hearing on the 

motion for preliminary injunction will be held on July 31, 2015. 

(2) Defendant's Motion for Expedited Discovery To Respond To 

Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED. 

(3) Defendant's Motion to Shorten Time For Briefing And Hearing 

Regarding uCool's Motion for Expedited Discovery is DENIED as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 Dated: June 4, 2015 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:15-cv-01267-LHK Document 48 Filed 06/04/15 Page 8 of 8