Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-05416/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-05416-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

Case No.: 5:16-cv-05416-EJD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY; DENYING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE

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

MIKE HONDA FOR CONGRESS,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRIAN PARVIZSHAHI, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:16-cv-05416-EJD 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR EXPEDITED 

DISCOVERY; DENYING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 

CONTINUE HEARING DATE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 22, 23

Presently before the court are two matters filed by Defendants Ro for Congress, Inc. and 

Rohit “Ro” Khanna (“Defendants”): (1) a motion for expedited discovery, and (2) a motion to 

continue the hearing on Plaintiff Mike Honda for Congress’ (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Preliminary 

Injunction. Dkt. Nos. 22, 23. Having reviewed the documents filed in relation to these matters, 

the court finds, concludes and orders as follows:

1. Expedited discovery may be permitted if there is “good cause” to do so. Interserve, 

Inc. v. Fusion Garage PTE, Ltd., No. C 09-05812 JW (PVT), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63957, at 4-

5, 2010 WL 143665 (N.D. Cal. June 7, 2010). “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.” Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D. 

Cal. 2002). In determining whether good cause exists, courts have considered the purpose of the 

requested discovery, whether the request is narrowly tailored, and the potential burden on the 

responding party. Id. at 276-77. 

2. Because Defendants’ expedited discovery request is made in anticipation of a 

Case 5:16-cv-05416-EJD Document 29 Filed 09/28/16 Page 1 of 4
2

Case No.: 5:16-cv-05416-EJD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY; DENYING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE

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

preliminary injunction hearing, the court is also mindful of the standard that Plaintiff must satisfy 

to obtain such relief. A preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be 

awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Natural Res. 

Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008); Lopez v. Brewer, 680 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2012) 

(“A preliminary injunction is ‘an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted 

unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.’”). “To obtain a 

preliminary injunction, the moving party ‘must establish that: (1) it is likely to succeed on the 

merits; (2) it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the 

balance of equities tips in its favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest.’” Idaho v. Coeur 

D’Alene Tribe, 794 F.3d 1039, 1046 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Pom Wonderful LLC v. Hubbard, 

775 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2014)).

3. In addition, “‘serious questions going to the merits’ and a hardship balance that tips 

sharply towards the plaintiff can support issuance of a preliminary injunction, so long as the 

plaintiff also shows that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the 

public interest.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1132 (9th Cir. 2011). 

4. In the motion for expedited discovery, Defendants seek leave to take expedited 

discovery in the form of nine requests for production, three interrogatories and a deposition under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), to investigate several topics, including (1) whether a 

relevant confidentiality agreement exists, (2) the reason certain allegations may have been omitted 

from the Complaint, (3) whether a particular statement submitted by Mike Honda is true, (4) 

whether Defendants’ actually possess any confidential donor information, and (5) whether 

Plaintiff’s irreparable injury arguments can be supported. Defendants argue good cause exists for 

this discovery because, in their opinion at least, Plaintiff’s “papers contain significant assertions 

that are inconsistent with the evidence it submitted, omissions about a key accusation, and 

statements that are contradictory and hypocritical.”

5. In opposition, Plaintiff disputes the existence of good cause. To that end, Plaintiff 

Case 5:16-cv-05416-EJD Document 29 Filed 09/28/16 Page 2 of 4
3

Case No.: 5:16-cv-05416-EJD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY; DENYING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE

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

represents it has already disclosed all of the evidence supporting it claims, and will share 

additional evidence, including unredacted donor information, if the hearing on preliminary

injunction is not delayed. Additionally, Plaintiff contends that most of the information sought by 

Defendants is not relevant to issues that will be addressed in connection with the injunction 

motion, and for that reason, their proposed discovery requests are not narrowly tailored. 

6. The court finds that Defendants have not shown good cause for expedited 

discovery. First, the information sought by Defendants is not justified by its purported purpose. 

Indeed, as the court has observed and as Defendants undoubtedly recognize, it will be Plaintiff’s 

burden to sufficiently establish all that is necessary for the issuance of preliminary injunctive relief 

under Winter or Cottrell. If Defendants believe that Plaintiff’s evidence is insufficient to fulfill 

either standard, or believe its presentation is fatally unpersuasive so as to preclude Plaintiff from 

obtaining extraordinary relief, they are free to make those arguments. None of the discovery 

requested is needed in order for Defendants to present their opposition, and their defense to this 

limited issue will not be hindered in its absence. 

7. Second, the court agrees with Plaintiff that some of Defendants’ requests seek 

information that is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not an injunction should issue, and are not 

narrowly tailored in any event. For example, Defendants make no effort to convincingly justify, 

in the context of issues that may arise in connection with the injunction motion, the discovery 

related to allegations they believe are missing from the Complaint. A similar observation can be 

made with regard to their request to test the truthfulness of a statement made by Mike Honda; the

relevance of that discovery to the motion for preliminary injunction as opposed to the ultimate 

merits of Plaintiff’s claims is not explained.

8. Third, the court has issued a schedule for the injunction motion it believes is 

appropriate under the circumstances. Thus, a consideration of the timely administration of justice 

does not weigh in favor of permitting expedited discovery. 

Thus, for the reasons explained, Defendants’ Motion for Expedited Discovery (Dkt. No. 

Case 5:16-cv-05416-EJD Document 29 Filed 09/28/16 Page 3 of 4
4

Case No.: 5:16-cv-05416-EJD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY; DENYING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE

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

23) is DENIED. However, in light of its offer to do so, the court orders Plaintiff to produce to 

Defendants by 5:00 p.m. on September 29, 2016, an unredacted copy of the Donor Document 

entitled “030514 MH contribution 2008-2014.xls,” and its non-privileged correspondence with 

Garnetta Annable, Judy Bertelsen, Kalyn Free, Fayzan Gowani, Washington State Senator Bob 

Hasegawa, and Dale Minami. 

With this result, there is no basis to continue the hearing on the Motion for Preliminary 

Injunction. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion requesting such relief (Dkt. No. 22) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-05416-EJD Document 29 Filed 09/28/16 Page 4 of 4