Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-03707/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-03707-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 340
Nature of Suit: Marine Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

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

ALLAN D BOMBITA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MAERSK LINE, LTD.,

Defendant.

Case No. 4:19-cv-03707-JSW (KAW)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 

REQUEST TO CONDUCT 

JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY

Re: Dkt. No. 23

On August 19, 2019, Plaintiff Allan D. Bombita requested a 45-day extension of time to 

file his opposition to the pending motion to dismiss to conduct jurisdictional discovery. (Dkt. No. 

23.) On August 20, 2019, Defendant Maersk Line, Limited filed an opposition, in which it 

recognized that district courts have broad discretion to permit or deny jurisdictional discovery, but 

that Plaintiff has provided no rational reason for allowing such discovery. (Dkt. No. 27 at 2.) In 

reply, Plaintiff explained that he intends to seek discovery regarding Defendant’s recruiting 

practices. (Dkt. No. 28 at 5-6.) 

Thereafter, the request to conduct jurisdictional discovery, as well as all other discovery 

matters in this case, were referred to the undersigned. (Dkt. No. 29.)

In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request to conduct jurisdictional discovery pertaining 

to Defendant’s recruitment practices is GRANTED, and he shall have 45 days from the date of 

this order to conduct discovery. Should disputes arise pertaining to the scope of discovery, the 

parties shall meet and confer in an attempt to resolve these disputes without court intervention. If 

they are unable to do so, the parties shall file a joint letter that complies with the undersigned’s 

standing order.

Notwithstanding, Plaintiff is advised that the Court will not hesitate to enter a protective 

Case 4:19-cv-03707-JSW Document 32 Filed 10/16/19 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

order or quash a subpoena that is overreaching or that it believes is not noticed in good faith. For 

example, based on the information provided, it does not appear that information regarding The 

Standard Club—Defendant’s insurance carrier—is relevant to jurisdictional discovery, and, 

without more information, the Court would be inclined to quash a deposition subpoena for its 

manager, Charles Taylor. (See Decl. of James F. Kuhne, Jr., Dkt. No. 27-1 ¶ 4.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 16, 2019

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:19-cv-03707-JSW Document 32 Filed 10/16/19 Page 2 of 2