Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02446/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02446-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 Patent 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

The Hillman Group, Inc., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Hy-Ko Products Company,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CVO7-2446-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Defendant Hy-Ko Products has filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal

jurisdiction (Doc. #6). Plaintiff Hillman Group argues that Defendant has sufficient contacts

with Arizona to support general jurisdiction over Defendant in Arizona. On the present

record, the Court is not inclined to agree with Plaintiff.

Plaintiff has suggested that if the Court does not find jurisdiction on the present

record, the Court should allow limited jurisdictional discovery. Plaintiff does not cite to any

cases for that proposition. Nor does Plaintiff offer a plan for the timing and scope of the

jurisdiction.

The Court on its own research found a case supporting Plaintiff’s argument for limited

discovery. See Trnitec Indus. v. Pedre Promotional Products, 395 F.3d 1275, 1283 (Fed.Cir.

2005)(“If the district court concludes that the existing record is insufficient to support

personal jurisdiction, [plaintiff] is entitled to jurisdictional discovery. Such discovery is

appropriate where the existing record is ‘inadequate’ to support personal jurisdiction and ‘a

party demonstrates that it can supplement its jurisdictional allegations through

Case 2:07-cv-02446-JAT Document 36 Filed 06/05/08 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

discovery.’”)(internal citations omitted). The Court therefore will allow limited discovery

strictly on personal jurisdiction as follows:

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall be limited to ten (10) interrogatories, ten (10)

requests for production, and five depositions on the issue of personal jurisdiction.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall have no more than fifteen (15) days

to respond to interrogatories and requests for production. Plaintiff must propound its

discovery requests in time for Defendant to respond by June 25, 2008. Further, any

depositions must be taken by July 7, 2008. In sum, all discovery on the limited issue of

personal jurisdiction must be completed by July 7, 2008. The Court will not grant any

extensions.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in the event of a discovery dispute, the parties shall

jointly contact the Court via conference call to request a telephonic conference prior to filing

any written discovery motions. The parties shall not contact the Court regarding a discovery

dispute unless they have been unable to resolve the dispute themselves after personal

consultation and sincere efforts to do so. The parties shall not file any written materials

related to a discovery dispute without express leave of Court. If the Court does order written

submissions, the movant shall include a statement certifying that counsel could not

satisfactorily resolve the matter after personal consultation and sincere efforts to do so in

accordance with Civil Local Rule 7.2(j). The parties must raise any discovery disputes in

adequate time for the Court to consider and resolve the dispute before the discovery deadline.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file its supplemental briefing on

personal jurisdiction by July 14, 2008. Defendant shall file its supplemental response by July

21, 2008. Neither brief shall exceed ten (10) pages. The Court will not grant any extensions

of time or requests for additional briefing.

DATED this 5th day of June, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-02446-JAT Document 36 Filed 06/05/08 Page 2 of 2