Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03450/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03450-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1121 Trademark Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

*E-FILED 7/31/06*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CLARUS TRANSPHASE SCIENTIFIC, INC., 

Plaintiff,

 v.

Q-RAY, INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

NO. C 06-03450 JF (RS)

ORDER RE JURISDICTIONAL

DISCOVERY PROCEEDINGS

On July 27, 2006, the presiding judge in this action issued an order continuing the hearing on

plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and providing, among other things that, “[d]iscovery

as to jurisdiction may begin immediately, and counsel are directed to cooperate in order that both

sides may prepare adequately for the August 11, 2006 hearing.” The order further permits the

parties to submit supplemental briefing to the presiding judge (presumably limited to matters

uncovered in the jurisdictional discovery) no later than 5:00 p.m. on August 9, 2006.

Defendants subsequently have propounded various discovery requests. Plaintiff contends

that the presiding judge’s order was intended only to permit plaintiff to conduct discovery on

jurisdictional issues. The presiding judge has referred this dispute to the undersigned. The parties

have submitted letter briefs which, in view of the time constraints, will be accepted in lieu of formal

motion papers under Local Civil Rules 6-3 and 7.

The Court finds that under the circumstances and under the presiding judge’s July 27th order,

it is appropriate for either side to conduct discovery, so long as the discovery is limited to issues

Case 5:06-cv-03450-JF Document 48 Filed 07/31/06 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

bearing directly on the question of whether there is a basis to assert personal jurisdiction over

defendants in this forum. While it would be premature to rule specifically as to whether all of the

discovery propounded by defendants to date satisfies that requirement, defendants have articulated

what appears to be a reasonable basis for seeking at least some of the categories of information in

their requests. 

Defendants, however, appear also to be seeking some information that bears not on the

question of whether there is personal jurisdiction over them in California, but on issues related to

their alternative request for a convenience-based transfer of this action. The presiding judge’s July

27th order continuing the preliminary injunction hearing reflects a recognition that the question of

personal jurisdiction “is a preliminary decision that should be made prior to deciding the motion for

a preliminary injunction.” Order at 2:3-4. Without jurisdiction, an injunction cannot properly issue.

In contrast, a motion to transfer venue “for convenience” under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 is not based on the

original court’s lack of jurisdiction, but on other factors, and the pendency of such a motion would

not preclude entry of a preliminary injunction.

The presiding judge’s July 27th order specifically authorized discovery “as to jurisdiction.” 

Matters relating solely to defendants’ alternative request for a transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 are

not within the scope of that order. With that guidance in mind, and with the understanding that

either side may propound discovery on jurisdictional issues, the parties are directed to engage in

further meet and confer discussions as to any disputes that may remain with respect to any of the

specific discovery requests that defendants have propounded. 

Should further Court intervention be required, the parties shall seek relief through motions

filed in conformance with Civil Local Rules 6-3 and 7. The parties are advised that Rule 6-3 does

not preclude the Court from acting on a matter prior to the three day period ordinarily allotted for an 

Case 5:06-cv-03450-JF Document 48 Filed 07/31/06 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER RE JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY PROCEEDINGS 

C 06-03450 JF (RS) 

3

opposition to be filed, and that in view of the August 11, 2006 hearing date set by the presiding

judge, any opposition to such motions should be filed as promptly as possible.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 31, 2006 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:06-cv-03450-JF Document 48 Filed 07/31/06 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER RE JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY PROCEEDINGS 

C 06-03450 JF (RS) 

4

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN GIVEN TO:

John C. Gorman jgorman@gormanmiller.com

Craig Alan Hansen chansen@gormanmiller.com

Michael J. Hoisington mhoisington@higgslaw.com,

Ross Kimbarovsky rossk@uhlaw.com

Charles F. Reidelbach, Jr. reidelbach@higgslaw.com,

Phillip Samouris samouris@higgslaw.com, moklestadn@higgslaw.com

Richard Henry Tilghman , IV rhtilghman@uhlaw.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the Court's CM/ECF program. 

Dated: 7/31/06 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:06-cv-03450-JF Document 48 Filed 07/31/06 Page 4 of 4