Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-02327/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-02327-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Trademark 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

1 The burden issue was not raised with the magistrate judge prior to her August 21,

2006 Order. It was raised in the H&R Moving Defendants' Objection and in supplementary briefing

filed before the magistrate judge's Further Order. The magistrate judge did address the burden issue

in her Further Order. In light of the deferential review by a district court on discovery issues, the

ORDER ON OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER DATED AUGUST 21, 2006—No. C-06-02327 RMW 

SPT

E-FILED on 8/29/06

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

INTUIT INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

H&R BLOCK EASTERN ENTERPRISES,

INC.; H&R BLOCK ENTERPRISES, INC.;

H&R BLOCK AND ASSOCIATES, L.P.; and

HRB ROYALTY, INC.,

Defendants.

No. C-06-02327 RMW

ORDER ON OBJECTIONS TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER DATED

AUGUST 21, 2006 

[Re Docket No. 92]

H&R Block Eastern Enterprises, Inc., H&R Block and Associates, L.P., and HRB Royalty,

Inc. (collectively, "H&R Moving Defendants") object to the magistrate judge's Order re Plaintiff's

Motion to Compel Discovery dated August 21, 2006. After H&R Moving Defendants filed their

objections on August 22, 2006, the magistrate judge issued on August 25, 2006 her Further Order re

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery. The only objection that still remains unaddressed after the

magistrate judge's Further Order deals with the scope of personal jurisdiction discovery.1

 The court

Case 5:06-cv-02327-RMW Document 103 Filed 08/29/06 Page 1 of 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

court assumes the parties will comply without objection to the magistrate judge's Further Order. See

Grimes v. City and County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 240 (9th Cir. 1991) (discovery sanctions

are non-dispositive pretrial matters that are reviewed for clear error under Rule 72(a)); F.D.I.C. v.

Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland, 196 F.R.D. 375, 378 (S.D. Cal. 2000) ("The 'clearly

erroneous' standard applies to factual findings and discretionary decisions made in connection with

non-dispositive pretrial discovery matters."). In any event, before this court will act on any

objection based upon burden or the magistrate judge's limitation on the scope of discovery ordered, a

party will have to file an objection to the Further Order.

2 Civil Local Rule 72-2 provides: 

Unless otherwise ordered by the assigned District Judge, no response need be filed

and no hearing will be held concerning an objection to a Magistrate Judge’s order

pursuant to FRCivP 72(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The District Judge may

deny the objection by written order at any time, but may not grant it without first

giving the opposing party an opportunity to brief the matter. If no order denying the

motion or setting a briefing schedule is made within 15 days of filing the objection,

the objection shall be deemed denied. The Clerk shall notify parties when an

objection has been deemed denied.

ORDER ON OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER DATED AUGUST 21, 2006—No. C-06-02327 RMW 

SPT 2

hereby affirms the magistrate judge's ruling that the "limited jurisdictional discovery" referred to in

this court's July 20, 2006 Order was not intended to restrict discovery to only plaintiff's theories that

jurisdiction could rest on either an agency or alter ego relationship between the H&R Moving

Defendants and some California entity. By "limited jurisdictional discovery," the court intended to

limit discovery to the subject of personal jurisdiction—either general or specific. H&R Moving

Defendants' request for a stay is denied as moot.

ANALYSIS

H&R Moving Defendants request this court (1) reverse the magistrate judge's August 21,

2006 Order pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72-2 (Objection to Nondispositive Pretrial Decision)2

 or, in

the alternative, reconsider the magistrate judge's August 21, 2006 Order pursuant to Civil Local Rule

7-9(b)(3), and (2) stay the magistrate judge's August 21, 2006 Order pending disposition of the

motion to reverse or reconsider that order. 

H&R Moving Defendants' main argument in support of their motion is that this court's July

20, 2006 Order limited jurisdictional discovery to Intuit Inc.'s ("Intuit's") agency and alter ego

theories of personal jurisdiction. H&R Moving Defendants contend that the court's July 20, 2006

Case 5:06-cv-02327-RMW Document 103 Filed 08/29/06 Page 2 of 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 3 The court acknowledges that its July 20 Order might have been more clear if it had

referred to "discovery limited to personal jurisdiction" rather than "limited jurisdictional discovery."

ORDER ON OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER DATED AUGUST 21, 2006—No. C-06-02327 RMW 

SPT 3

Order "recognized that Intuit had failed to make a prima facie case to warrant jurisdictional

discovery on either its general jurisdiction or non-alter ego/agency theories":

The [c]ourt accepted uncontradicted evidence that Moving Defendants are not

authorized to do—and do not do—business in California, provide no products or

services to customers in California, employ no workers in California, have no offices

in California, and were not involved in any way in creating or arranging the

broadcast of the disputed advertisement.

Jt. Br. Re Mot. Compel at 2-3. H&R Moving Defendants further note that the court's July 20, 2006

Order permitted only limited jurisdictional discovery. Thus, H&R Moving Defendants take issue

with the magistrate judge's August 21, 2006 Order because it did not recognize such a purported

limit to jurisdictional discovery. Intuit argues that this court's July 20, 2006 Order did not limit

jurisdictional discovery and the term "limited" referred to discovery being limited to the issue of

personal jurisdiction.3

 

The court's July 20, 2006 Order deferred ruling on H&R Moving Defendants' motion to

dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. In that order, the court found that "[t]he present situation

appears to be one where 'a more satisfactory showing of the facts is necessary.'" See Laub v. U.S.

Dept. of Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003) ("[D]iscovery should ordinarily be granted

where pertinent facts bearing on the question of jurisdiction are controverted or where a more

satisfactory showing of the facts is necessary.") (citation omitted). The court noted that a more

satisfactory showing of facts was needed in two respects. First, there were insufficient facts upon

which to consider whether personal jurisdiction might exist under either an agency or alter ego

theory:

What is unclear is (1) whether the H&R Block entity or entities that were involved

in the development and airing of the H&R Ad have a relationship with the moving

defendants that would give rise to an imputation of sufficient forum contacts and (2)

whether the moving defendants have an alter ego or similar relationship with one or

more H&R Block entities that have jurisdictionally sufficient contacts with

California. Accordingly, the court finds that limited jurisdictional discovery is

appropriate here.

July 20, 2006 Order at 7:15-20. Second, the court found that the information provided by the H&R

Moving Defendants about H&R's subsidiaries in support of their argument that they did not have

Case 5:06-cv-02327-RMW Document 103 Filed 08/29/06 Page 3 of 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

ORDER ON OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER DATED AUGUST 21, 2006—No. C-06-02327 RMW 

SPT 4

anything to do with the H&R ad at issue was too sketchy. Although the court considered the

information provided that the H&R Moving Defendants are not incorporated in California, do not

conduct business in California, have no employees in California and were not involved in "creating"

or "arranging" the H&R ad in dispute, the court did not find the information conclusive of the

determination of either specific or general jurisdiction. See July 20 Order at 8:5-9 ("Although H&R

Block disputes that moving defendants had anything to do with the allegedly offending ad, the court

finds that the sketchy information provided by H&R about its subsidiaries justifies limited

jurisdictional discovery."). 

ORDER

The magistrate judge's order that discovery is not limited to agency and alter ego theories of

personal jurisdiction is affirmed. Discovery is limited only to personal jurisdiction questions. H&R

Moving Defendants' motion for a stay pending this court's ruling is denied as moot.

DATED: 8/29/06

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-02327-RMW Document 103 Filed 08/29/06 Page 4 of 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

ORDER ON OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER DATED AUGUST 21, 2006—No. C-06-02327 RMW 

SPT 5

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Claude M. Stern claudestern@quinnemanuel.com 

Counsel for Defendants:

Jeffrey L. Bleich bleichjl@mto.com 

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

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

Dated: 8/29/06 SPT 

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:06-cv-02327-RMW Document 103 Filed 08/29/06 Page 5 of 5