Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00632/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00632-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338pt Patent Infringement

---

1 

17cv632-CAB-MDD 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

IPS GROUP, INC., 

 Plaintiff,

v. 

CIVICSMART, INC., et al., 

 Defendants.

Case No.: 17cv632-CAB-MDD 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR EXPEDITED 

DISCOVERY 

[ECF NO. 44] 

 In this case, filed on March 29, 2017, Plaintiff alleges Defendants 

infringed Plaintiff’s patents in parking meter devices, and also alleges 

Defendants violated California’s False Advertising Law and Unfair 

Competition Law and the federal Lanham Act. (ECF Nos. 1 (Complaint) and 

23 (First Amended Complaint)). Pertinent to this motion, Plaintiff alleges 

Defendants lured prospective customers into buying Defendants’ products 

with false statements that Defendants’ technology does not infringe 

Plaintiff’s patents. 

Case 3:17-cv-00632-CAB-MDD Document 59 Filed 07/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2 

17cv632-CAB-MDD 

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

 On May 26, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction, 

which is pending before the assigned District Judge. (ECF No. 24). On June 

23, 2017, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint 

(ECF No. 41). On June 30, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant motion seeking an 

order authorizing limited expedited discovery related to its pending motion 

for preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 44). Plaintiff seeks leave to serve 

interrogatories and document demands, and to take a half-day Rule 30(b)(6) 

deposition concerning Defendants’ statements to prospective customers. 

Defendants responded in opposition on July 14, 2017. (ECF No. 56). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d) states: 

A party may not seek discovery from any source before the 

parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except in a 

proceeding exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 

26(a)(1)(B), or when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or 

by court order. 

In the instant case, Plaintiff needs a court order to obtain early 

discovery. In this Circuit, courts must find “good cause” to determine 

whether to permit discovery prior to the Rule 26(f) conference. Good cause 

exists where the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the 

administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party. 

See, e.g., Arista Records, LLC v. Does 1–43, Case No. 07cv2357-LAB-POR, 

2007 WL 4538697, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2007). 

Plaintiff asserts that expedited discovery is necessary to provide 

evidence in support of its motion for a preliminary injunction that 

Defendants falsely represented to potential customers that Defendants’ 

technology did not infringe Plaintiff’s patents. Plaintiff asserts it knows such 

evidence exists, because Plaintiff obtained that evidence through discovery in 

another pending court proceeding (Case No. 15cv1526-CAB-MDD). Plaintiff 

Case 3:17-cv-00632-CAB-MDD Document 59 Filed 07/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3 

17cv632-CAB-MDD 

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

explains it cannot use the evidence obtained in the other case in support of its 

motion in this case because Defendants designated that evidence as 

confidential under the Protective Order in the other case. Plaintiff contends 

the evidence was improperly designated as confidential in that matter. 

Plaintiff asserts that the burden to Defendants is minimal because they may 

have already collected some of the responsive documents and the discovery 

will inevitably occur in due course in this action. 

Defendants oppose on the grounds that Plaintiff cannot demonstrate 

need for the expedited discovery because briefing on the preliminary 

injunction motion closed on the same day Plaintiff filed this motion. 

Defendants further argue that the assumption that this discovery will 

inevitably occur is no support for expediting this discovery. As for Plaintiff’s 

claim that the evidence has been produced but designated as confidential in 

the other case, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s proper recourse is to follow 

the Protective Order’s procedures for de-designating the documents as 

confidential in the other case. Defendants assert that the requests are vague 

and overbroad. Defendants further contend that the discovery sought is 

burdensome and the burden is not outweighed by Plaintiff’s purported need. 

The Court finds that good cause is lacking for expedited discovery. The 

Court will not order Defendants to engage in early discovery in this action 

that is duplicative of the discovery that Plaintiff asserts already occurred in 

the other action. Plaintiff has a vehicle for obtaining this evidence that is far 

less burdensome to Defendants than expedited discovery. Rather than 

seeking expedited discovery here, Plaintiff should use the vehicle for dedesignating the evidence produced confidentially in the other action, or, if 

permitted by the Protective Order in that action, file the evidence under seal 

in this action. 

Case 3:17-cv-00632-CAB-MDD Document 59 Filed 07/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4 

17cv632-CAB-MDD 

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

Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the need for expedited discovery 

outweighs the prejudice to Defendants in having to respond to discovery at 

this stage of the case. The motion for expedited discovery is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 27, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00632-CAB-MDD Document 59 Filed 07/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4